Ron likes Arlo's post. Share. Like. twitter.
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:45 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > > [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 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
