[John] And I felt it touched upon an explanation of myself, a bit. For people who wonder how an intellectually-oriented person can dabble in religion.
[Arlo] I heard an analogy the other day I really like, to restate it, in many ways 'religion' is like the solid rocket boosters under a space shuttle. Their goal is to lift the shuttle into orbit, and fall away when no longer needed. Of course, there are other ways to achieve orbit, one does not NEED solid rocket boosters. But when these boosters fail to fall away, when they remain attached to the shuttle, ultimately the shuttle will fail to achieve a sustainable orbit and will fall back down to the ground. In this analogy, 'mythology' is the larger set of the knowledge of the many and different ways people have to achieve orbit. Sure, for some solid rocket boosters can be a very useful tool. But when religion does not detach, when it locks itself into its inerrant or exoteric forms, it actually becomes a hinderance. At the level of mythology, 'religion' is viewed (as Joseph Campbell does) through its esoteric form, and valued as its ability to lift- and then detach- and ALL means of achieving orbit can be viewed and discussed as all lifting wo/man to the same heights (the monomyth) and challenged when they fail and pull wo/man back down to their (in this analogy) spiritual deaths. So by "dabble in religion", I hear you say something like "dabble in solid rocket boosters", which is fine, so long as we share an understanding that there are many other ways to achieve orbit, some might be better for others and no one in particular is either necessary nor required, and some (call it The Cult of The Solid Rocket Booster) need to be condemned for failing to use the tool properly. But if by "dabble in religion" you mean support those who demand the solid rocket boosters never decouple, or that everyone NEEDS solid rocket boosters in order to achieve orbit, in short if you either support or fail to criticize The Cult of The Solid Rocket Booster, then, yes, I would wonder how an intellectually-oriented person dabble as such. Of course, all this is just "losing my religion", as REM sang. [John] Well according to Deep Ecology, you must find a way to make nature your religion. practical scientific mind is not the way, it has no provision for Value. [Arlo] This is a condemnation of S/O science, and I would think we all share it. But "nature as your religion" (in the John Muir way) isn't really 'religion', its trying to coopt a term of value from within the S/O discourse, when, of course the solution is to evolve from the S/O discourse. We all (I hope) love and respect and care for our families, but you don't hear people say "families are our religion" because our culture normalizes love-for-family. My point is you don't need 'religion' to justify love-for-nature, you just need a heart. 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
