Hi Andrie, Thanks, I agree, religion is used cohesively and should be judged according to one's own interpretation. It's attempt at rational description is often full of suggestive obedience. It should be arrived at through personal inquiry and any paths that are suggested should be seen only as such, not as the answers in themselves. So, rational inquiry is my method. When I reach some kind of unknown, I treat it as a temporary block and do not immediately subscribe to some grand vision as the answer. This is of course just my personal method. I then go back to the questions, perhaps taking a different approach. For me, gospels are analogies which describe an interpretation by someone else. Whether such an interpretation is useful or meaningful requires my buy-in. Such buy-in is not immediate and often not existent. I of course have to choose what to look at. I am not quite sure where that choice is being formulated, it is more of a ride.
Thinking is what we do. In that sense, it is good. To think otherwise is also thinking, but is not productive and self-defeating. Where we get new ideas is of course open. Some of my ideas come from playing video games, perhaps it is the game itself which suggests such thinking. Everything is open and can be made meaningful. A structured approach always has its flaws, but such is the adventure of progress. We have no choice but to progress, or at least change. Let's enjoy it. I appreciate your insight. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:15 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]>wrote: > To clarify on my position, Mark, i spook very easily when religion is > mentioned > as a widget to insert in science. > The common grounds are the field of progress,evolutive > thinking,model-dependant > realism,pragmatism, radikal empiricism, common sense,etc. > If we re-launch questions about the value's of the gospel,we will end up > talking like mormon's > in the end. > > To stay coherent, these are some of the questions raised by the topic,... > -Is thinking allowed,?needs it to be guided by science or religion,who are > the guides? > -are the guides to be found on youtube, on this forum,science, the lines of > Pirsig's work... > -etc..., is progress a good guide or a dead end?.. > > Adrie > > > > 2010/10/29 118 <[email protected]> > > > Hi Andrie, > > > > Would you call questioning the premises of science irrational? Sounds to > > me > > like a rational inquiry. Who makes the rules on what is rational? How > > would you describe spiritual rationality? If attacking rationality > > rationally is a problem, then how should it be done? Where does the root > > lie? Please identify it so that we can converse on common ground. > > > > Some questions for you. And, please stay coherent. > > > > Cheers > > > > Mark > > > > [Andrie before] > > > > Hi , Dave, yes , these words are wisely chosen. > > Implausible,incoherent and dishonest. > > The guy is a fraude.It is impossible to make progress by criminalising > > progress itself. > > > > If you like to compare the used demagogy with some demagogy here, the > root > > of rationality > > comes to mind, on the question to expand the 'root' of rationality > > The answer is to attack rationality itself, deviating the possible > answers > > to a field that > > stays away from the root of rationality. > > > > Theresienstadt-arguments really. > > > > good reflections , Thanks, Adrie > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > > > -- > parser > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
