Horse,
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John > > I have no problem with calling religion a social pattern and, for some > communities, these patterns are highly significant but they are not the > totality of the social level. > What you appear to want to do, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is > replace the social level with your 'religious' level, thus replacing all > social patterns of value with religious patterns of value which is quite > obviously incorrect. Religion and religious patterns are a part of the > social level. If all religions and religious patterns disappeared in a puff > of smoke tomorrow there would still be a social level. > > Horse > > You're right. There is a lot more to the social level than codified social patterns (religion) We are ALSO social in the other types of social that we share with canines, etc. But the part of social that is uniquely human, is that part that binds us together with shared value. Re-ligere means to Re-Bind. Ligere as in ligature, a word which means to bind. That is the nature of religion - to bind people together efficiently and with the least amount of in-group conflict. As such, it forms an important role in human survival and when different religions clash, great mayhem erupts. What help can intellect offer to assuage this mayhem? None at all if we won't even look at the subject. John 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
