Right Mark. Being against theism really misses the point of Quality. Anti-theism is probably the single biggest factor In the promulgation of SOM.
Sent from my iPhone too and yes, it is a bit laborious but then that probably encourages the brevity which is called the soul of wit. Hmmm... Take care, John On Nov 26, 2011, at 10:32 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > Hear,Hear! > > Being "against theism" really misses the point. It is reactionary modern > philosophy that claims to have something better. Maybe it does, who am I to > say. But most modern philosophy reintroduces the same old concepts that have > been used for thousands of years. Much current philosophy is sterile (IMO), > and MoQ brings us back to actually caring. > > If ones personal relationship to the cosmos is not Holy, then I don't know > what it is. If one wants to treat reality with a ten foot pole, then go at > it. Or they could jump right in and feel the water. Perhaps something like > the Holy Trinity seems stupid, so now we call it matter, energy and their > interconversion. But, are we really any wiser? Nihilism is ripe. We are > losing our connection through conscious separation. Formulating complex > equations for something we can just go out and feel.. > > In MoQ we do not worship the static representation of a God. We live > Quality. Arete is the order of the day. False idols have never been the > message. A true commandment if I have ever heard one. > > Me? I am not a Christian, or a Buddhist, or a Scientologist...I do not > blindly follow dogma that I have read. I create dogma as I read, listen and > participate. Such dogma is, in the end, Straw, and will never replace living. > > Shalom, > > Sent laboriously from an iPhone, > Mark > > On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:43 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > 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
