Hello, Irina. leuk , ben ik niet meer de enige belg hier.Je hebt een mooie posting gemaakt , Irina,je kunt heel goed intellectueel uit de voeten merk ik.Zelf post ik hier eigenlijk nog zelden, we maakten in de groep teveel ruzie soms. anyway,ff een tip , wil je erop letten niet de gehele body's van de threads te cut-copy pasten?;het is snel verwarrend en het word ook nog eens gearchiveerd? je mag natuurlijk wel grote snips nemen,maar denk om de bandbreedte.Ik probeer je ook maar te helpen hoor. groetjes , Adrie,Oost Vlaanderen.
2016-02-10 17:00 GMT+01:00 Emily Schober <emily_par...@hotmail.com>: > Hi Irina, > > First off, welcome. Second, well said. I think the best approach of the > group, speaking from my own POV, is that the group have NO expectations > whatsoever from commenters. If we have no preformed expectations about > others' opinions, then it would be impossible for you to "fall short". > Regardless, even saying that you might "fall short" is saying that everyone > else's opinions are potentially more important and relevant than yours. And > who is to say that??? I've only been in the group for less than a year, but > I don't think that length of time amongst the MOQ discussion subgroup > necessarily equates to more qualified. > > Anyway, I'm a person who is strongly but also skeptically and > questioningly religious -- both from a more traditional (Catholic > upbringing) and Zen Buddhist (from more recent personal research) approach. > However, I don't discount the current scientific laws of evolution, because > as a person who believes in the scientific method I find it very difficult > to swallow that anyone can believe the universe is only a few thousand > years old and that humans started off as the modern homo sapien (and let's > not forgot about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures in general). > > All of your thoughts resonate with me, make sense, and echo what I > believe, in part. You put my thoughts into well phrased words. However, I > don't think I quite follow what you mean by "the duel between self > sustenance and self deprivation". Can you expand upon that? > > Thank you. > Emily Schober > > ________________________________________ > From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of > Irina <irinaduplessis.ii.cons...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:53 PM > To: moq_discuss@lists.moqtalk.org > Subject: Re: [MD] In religion > > Hello. This is my first attempt to join the conversation and it might fall > short of all expectations but I am interested to try. > > I wonder why there is a need to prove or disprove the existence of a > god...any god. If we proved that god existed in the biblical sense of the > word, would that really many any difference to the laws of science? Those > laws are like calculations meant to arrive at a specific result. Whether we > constructed them from a basis of religion or from pure pragmatism makes > little difference to the practical application of it all. Science has never > being for its own sake and as far as I am concerned neither has religion. > Each set of norms...laws...whatever we want to call them, were designed to > serve a purpose first and foremost. > > Having read the bible and studied some theology I can say there are a lot > of pragmatic social laws described therein. The purpose being social order > of a more archaic type. Yes personally I am not a fan of this form of > social order because it is biased and not updated to suit life as it > unfolds today. I am not atheist as such and neither agnostic. I am in > favour of spiritualism as a whole. This entails a whole set of behaviours > and a specific mentality as well as openness to possibility...another > discussion. > > The main barrier to human evolution is our refusal to move past the need > to confirm what we can't. The constant duel between mind and body and self > and society is the mirror image of the duel between religion and science > and between self sustenance and self deprivation. Unless this argument is > left altogether as unpractical to argue in the first place...we will never > move forward. > > Initially I said that if I had one wish to wish...it would be a world > without religion. Because then all would be forced to find their self worth > from within their own core and not on the basis of external motivators. > However, that is idealistic at best. As a second best wish I would settle > for a world of religion without publicity. Believe what you will but no > need to advertise it. If you can't sustain your belief from within.. > Without the need for affirmation, then let it go altogether. > > It is funny to think that religion might not survive at all if no one were > to talk about it publicly. > > Some thoughts... > > -----Original Message----- > From: "moq_discuss-requ...@lists.moqtalk.org" < > moq_discuss-requ...@lists.moqtalk.org> > Sent: 08/02/2016 21:05 > To: "moq_discuss@lists.moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss@lists.moqtalk.org> > Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8 > > Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to > moq_discuss@lists.moqtalk.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > moq_discuss-requ...@lists.moqtalk.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > moq_discuss-ow...@lists.moqtalk.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: still going? (John Carl) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:57:02 -0800 > From: John Carl <ridgecoy...@gmail.com> > To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org > Subject: Re: [MD] still going? > Message-ID: > <CAKPdW3nC7-n0PSgxp4B71JLJwSL7c2= > 5tjahg3gadtxlmwq...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Adrie and dave, > > > > It is true altogether that we cannot prove that god does not exist, hence > > he 'does 'exist or to say the least, fallibilism as a postulate (if > > accepted) allows > > the creator to stay on top of the pyramid. > > Jc: I understand your fear, but I wonder what place "fear" has in > rational inquiry? Perhaps Christianity and Islam have bred such > virulent forms of fundamentalist social dominance tactics that any > conception of God must be branded as 'evil' immediately and the > subject never raised again. At least it seems that is the gist of the > arguments you offer against "sunday-school teacher" Randy, and me. > > I almost understand, such a prejudicial stance, but if we're talking > about the actual fact of the historical record then we have to be more > honest, intellectually, and if you throw out Royce, you sure have to > throw out James, who was certainly more of a church-goer than Josiah > was. > > But honestly, is all that really the point? Royce laid out the proper > sphere of religion and philosophy in his Religious Aspect of > Philosophy, and right off the bat he makes it clear that these are TWO > DIFFERING REALMS. Just as Pirsig made it clear that religion is > social and philosophy is intellectual, Royce makes it clear that > Philosophy cannot be constrained or beholden to ANY unexamined > preconceptions or prejudice. > > I would remind you all, that being Anti-God is just as pernicious a > prejudice as being pro-God. In fact. This can be most plainly > observed in the ontology of Ayn Rand, where she explicitly makes moves > for no other reason than to exclude God. and as we all know, > unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad metaphysics. > > > > > > But in this instance,one has to accept,--fallibilism as true, and > > fallibilism as a > > postulated guarantee not only that we are wrong to deny the creator' > > story,.. > > but also that we live with the wrong a priori's. > > > > Jc: Ok, but "wrong" does actually imply the ontological status of > "right", therefore the assertion of wrong, fundamentally, helps us > escape that modern skepticism which begets nothing but nominalism in > academic Pragmatism. > > > Ad: > > > It did not take me much time to find that Royce, indeed is using > fallibilism > > to maintain the theistic stance. > > It took me less then 10 minutes to keep Auxier against the light to find > out > > he gives bible classes in his free time.But using this as an argument > > against > > John's apparant will to devote him would make this case moot. > > > > > Jc: I consciously choose a Theistic interpretation to my life. It > helps me feel happy. What can you do? We all got our weird little > quirks. I think the problem has been the exclusive nature of theistic > interpreters and this has gotten us all a bad name. You hear any of > that "god" talk and right away you think narrow, moralistic, > holier-than-thou and all that baggage that has gotten dragged into the > dialogue with and about modern Christianity. I hear ya. I don't > blame ya. that stuff sickens us all. All I can do is assure you that > there are some of us who appreciate the mythic structure of the bible, > and observe and influence the communities that collect themselves > around those writings. We don't mean anything absolute about it, but > as simply another painting hanging in the gallery, we like it. > > Sorry if that offends you. > > I will tell you an interesting story that I fully believe. It's by > another of my favorite authoris, M. Scott Peck. In it, he tells of his > encounters with various people who come to him for help, as a > psychotherapist and Psychologist. Many troubled people he as seen, > and one thing he has remarked upon over the years is that many times a > good christian has come to his office and stayed for the treatment and > found help, who has become converted, in the end, to atheism. Also, > many atheists have come to him, talked out their troubles, and come > over time to a conclusion that there must be some sort of god out > there, and a more deeply connected spiritual life. So what's going > on? Atheists are converted to Theism and Theists are converted to > Atheism, by the same process. How can that be? Isn't one of these > more right than the other? > > Well all I can say is, we need to learn to accept where we are and > where each other is as well, without all this judgement and criticism > and I know Randall Auxier well enough to assert he would say the same. > > Ad: > > > My personal perspective on fallibilism in general is derived from logic, > if > > fallibilism is true,then fallibilism itself is probably wrong. > > Jc: > > Oh, you think you're clever, doncha. > > Well... you are. but within limits. "probably" is "merely" a > pejorative term. Change it to "fallibilism 'could' be wrong" and I'd > hum that tune right along with ya and harmonize with a mighty > resounding DUH. > > Ad: > > > However this does not mean that fallibilism is not a genuine and solid > > analytical knife, if handled in skilled hands.Roye apparently understood > > true/untrue false/correct as 'wrong' and 'mistaken' but if this is the > > case, then the denotation is fighting with the connotation, and ths?e > game > > becomes a mindfuck.I find it rather strange that he attempted to repaint > > the mona lisa so to speak. > > > > Jc: I think there is more here to unpack, but the super bowl is on, > and I'm gonna go watch more. GO BRONCOS. > > didn't Lady Gaga do a wonderful job of the national anthem? I think so. > > Love, > > John > > > > > But regardless of these moot-events,David , in your opinion, should i > take > > the effort to read and study some work of Royce,just for the sake of my > > knowledge of philosophy, or lack of it? Is there value to discover, new > > insights or things that were left behind to easy? > > > > Adrie. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-05 16:41 GMT+01:00 david <dmbucha...@hotmail.com>: > > > >> > >> Adrie quoted Wikipedia to dispute John's claims: > >> > >> > >> "His publication in 1885 of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy > >> ...contained a new proof for the existence of God based upon the reality > >> of > >> error. All errors are judged to be erroneous in comparison to some total > >> truth, Royce argued, and we must either hold ourselves infallible or > >> accept > >> that even our errors are evidence of a world of truth. Having made it > >> clear > >> that idealism depends upon postulates and proceeds hypothetically, Royce > >> defends the necessity of objective reference of our ideas to a universal > >> whole within which they belong, for without these postulates, ?both > >> practical life and the commonest results of theory, from the simplest > >> impressions to the most valuable beliefs, would be for most if not all > of > >> us utterly impossible?. (see The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, p. > 324)" > >> > >> > >> > >> dmb says: > >> > >> > >> Since Royce was offering fallibilism as "a new proof for the existence > of > >> God" and "the necessity of objective reference of our ideas", his > >> fallibilism is very, very different from the fallibilism of Pragmatists > >> like James and Pirsig. I think it's fair to say that Pirsig is NOT > >> offering > >> theism or objectivity. James, Dewey, and Pirsig are quite explicit in > >> their > >> rejection of SOM and even James, the most religion-friendly of the > three, > >> wrote his Varieties of Religious Experience in order to DISPUTE the > >> religious claims made by Royce. > >> > >> > >> From the Stanford Encyclopedia: > >> > >> "Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper > >> understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James delivered > >> the Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments > against > >> Royce's idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name. > >> James's lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience, > were > >> a popular and academic success . Royce believed that James, who had > never > >> been regularly affiliated with an established church or religious > >> community, had in that work placed too much emphasis on the > extraordinary > >> religious experiences of extraordinary individuals. Royce's first > >> education > >> was into a strongly Protestant world view, he always retained a respect > >> for > >> the conventions of organized Christianity, and his writings exhibit a > >> consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He sought a philosophy > of > >> religion that could help one understand and explain the phenomena of > >> ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary > people. > >> There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered on > a > >> metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was at > >> bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and > >> pragmatism of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source of > >> religious experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being." > >> > >> > >> > >> Since Pirsig was suspicious of James for trying to sneak religion in > >> through the back door into philosophy, imagine what he'd think of > Royce's > >> "respect of the conventions of organized Christianity" and his stance > >> "contrary to the open-ended pluralism and pragmatism of James". > >> > >> > >> > >> Like I keep saying, trying to make this Idealistic religious fanatic > into > >> a Pirsigian is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Why, > >> why, why does John keep preaching this nonsense against all evidence and > >> reason? This covert theism is bullshit and cannot be sustained without a > >> huge dose of dishonesty, or ignorance, or both. > >> > >> > >> > >> It's fine if a person insists on being an Idealist, an Absolutist, or a > >> advocate of conventional Christianity but it makes no sense to paint > >> Pirsig > >> or Pragmatism in these colors. The keys concepts of these two opposed > >> views > >> will crash into each other like two trains heading in opposite > directions. > >> It's worse than a pointless waste of time because, frankly, it's so > >> obviously stupid. It makes me sad and angry that John is allowed to > >> continue raining his bullshit on Pirsig and James. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > parser > > 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 > > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Moq_Discuss@lists.moqtalk.org > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8 > ******************************************* > 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 > -- parser 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
