I started to reply, Arlo, to something you've said recently in another thread, but in a pause, the draft I was composing made a swooshing sound like it was being mailed and now I can't find it. I'm still getting used to my new mobile device.
The thrust of my point, concerned your concern over advocates for a view that the MoQ is a theism. My question for you, is who the heck are you talking about? Ever since I've met you, just about, I've been hearing this from you and I still know of nobody on MD who could be described that way, and if you're talking about battles of the past... well, I wish you'd clarify. Because that particular past is so far gone, it hasn't really occured since Mark and I joined (about the same time, as I recall). Me having prior appearances of no real significance, and Mark possibly the same. I mean, he sure posted from a lotta different labels. Anyway, my point is, who, within "sound" of my voice, espouses such a ridiculous idea that the MoQ is and ought to be, a Theism? Personally, the only person I even know on MD, who espouses Theism as a high quality conceptual pattern , is me. Most around here are so frustrated over conflicts with dogmatic theists of varying stripe, they are fiercely anti-theistic by reaction and unwilling to even discuss the matter intelligently. So none of those people could espouse the MoQ as a Theism. God forbid! And I certainly don't, for I see Theism as just another pattern. The fact that pattern has worked in the past, oughta be a pragmatic indication anyway, that it serves the good of us all. The MoQ, however, is about the good of us all. The MoQ transcends any conception or "God" by always asking the question, "is your god any good?" Presupposing a judgement of men's gods, that men cannot stand. Whether that god is a god of islam, yahweh or L. Ron Hubbard, the MoQ upturns all idolatry and religion and says, Hmmm... but is it any good? No wonder it has a hard time making friends! My wife is reading a book, as her morning devotional, and she's liking it a lot and she keeps telling me I'd like it a lot too. So she's talked me into it. So far, I've liked it a lot. It talks about creativity and the fact that man is a creation himself, an efficient ordering of good stuff, in a good way, indicates that creativity itself is God. It's called, "The Artist's Way" and its by Julia Cameron, who is now a teacher and has been a successful screen writer. Right off, the introduction grabbed me and hooked into discussions of the utility of theism, which have arisen before: " 'The Great Creator? That sounds like some Native American God. That sounds too Christian, too New Age, too ... ' Stupid? Simple-minded? Threatening?.. I know. Think of this an exercise in open-mindedness. Just think, "okay, Great Creator, whatever that is," and keep reading. Allow yourself to experiment with the idea there might be a Great Creator and you might get some kind of use from it in freeing your own creativity. Because the Artist's Way is, in essence, a spiritual path, initiated and practiced through creativity, this book uses the word God. This may be volitile for some of you -- conjuring old, unworkable, unpleasant, or simply unbelievable ideas about God as you were raised to undertand "him". Please be open-minded. Remind yourself that to succeed in this course, no god concept is necessary. in fact, many of our commonly held god concepts get in the way. Do not allow semantics to become one more block for you. When the word "god" is used in these pages, you may substitute the thought, "good orderly direction" or "flow". What we talking about is a creative energy. "God" is useful shorthand for many of us, but so is "Goddess", "Mind", "Universe", "Source" and "Higher Power". ... The point is not what you name it. The point is you try using it. For many of us, thinking of it as a form of spiritual electricity has been a very useful jumping-off place. By the simple, scientific approach of experimentation and observation, a workable connection with the flow of good orderly direction can easily be established. It is not the intent of these pages to engage in explaining, debating or defining that flow. You do not need to understand electricity to use it." Now Arlo, that might offend you, but it sounds like a damn fine finger pointing at what WE mean by DQ. "Good orderly flow" explains that chemistry professor and his chemicals, as well as any other analogy you can come up with, and I think I like this book. I like the pragmatism implicit in the view that we don't have to understand (intellectually) in order to use (artistically) 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
