Arlo, [John] > I'm not sure what point Arlo is making with Toynbee/Campbell's "reborn", > except that its just a process that occurs naturally as cultures create > civilizations which grow old and die and there's really nothing to be done, > in > the end. > > [Arlo] > Sorry, I thought that would come across clearly. Toynbee's statement > indicates > that "saving ailing cultures" is a fool's quest, that the way forward is > through a death/birth event. Sure, we can put band-aids on things and slow > the > bleeding, but ultimately an ailing culture will die. And that is what > should > happen. > > "Schism in the soul, schism in the body social will not be resolved by... > even > by the most realistic, hardheaded work to weld together again the > deteriorating > elements. Only birth can conquer death..." (Toynbee) > > John:
Yes, I got the point you were trying to make; I just don't get the point of that point in that advocating fatalism always seems so pointless to me. Get my point? The way I look at it is that intellectual analysis of trends in society doesn't guarantee change, but it does make change possible. I think of big social happenings as waves which can smash you, or you can surf them. You only have power to position yourself in relation to the wave, you certainly can't stop it. But when enough people see and position themselves in relation to a wave of change, their collective response becomes itself a new wave. > [Ron] > In that root meaning DQ or Quality in it's totality to me, is best > described as > betterness, destruction is embedded in this betterness it is part of the > good. > It is part of being. > > [Arlo] > I think this is precisely right. The Hindu Trimurti are really a triadic > oneness, and a lot of Westerners have trouble understanding why people > would > worship Shiva. The Occidental traditions have, I think, relegated the > destructive element to a "satan" or evil figure who is at odds with the > Creator. I think if you delve into the Gnostic tradition, you'll see more > of > the Hindu inter-relatedness, but this is lost on those operating within the > exoteric paradigm. > > John: I agree Arlo, with your portrayal of the normal religious viewpoint of "satan causes destruction", but I actually take issue with that viewpoint. My perspective is that when you follow the bible story through the ages, it's usually a story of Jehovah smiting civilizations and bringing them down. A lot of what happens in the old testament, is great social systems being built up by men in their pride, and taken down by God over time. When viewed in this light then, the great controversy between God and Satan is enacted through Satan's love of man-in-rebellion and God's seeming indifference to our lofty aspirations and towering structures. Something you don't get in the sunday school view of "Satan hates us and God loves us" which is something I've often pointed out doesn't make sense. Satan loves us too, ya know. It's just that he loves us as part of his cause, whereas God loves us for his. Think of two warring generals, they both love their own souldiers, right? I'm not real popular in sunday school classes, for this and many other reasons. 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
