gav said: ---thanks for the excellent campbell quotes dave. this one kinda nails it i reckon: 'Therefore God and the gods are only convenient means - *themselves of the nature of the world of names and forms*, though eloquent of, and ultimately conducive to, the ineffable. They are mere symbols to move and awaken the mind, and to call it past themselves. ...'For,' as Jesus states it, 'behold, the kingdom of God is within you.' the reality of 'god' as an idea, an abstraction, a symbol is something that is beyond doubt. it is culturally universal. what it refers to, or as campbell beautifully puts it, 'is eloquent of', is the mystery itself: the ground of being etc etc.
dmb says: I think that quote is pretty much the central point of Campbell's work. He wants to say that literal interpretations of myth are incorrect and obscure their meaning. He condemn's literalism in the atheist and the theist alike and says they're both wrong for exactly the same reason. They don't read myth AS myth. Gav said: to clarify, 'god' is A CONCEPT. you can't believe or disbelieve it, it just is. you can interpret it, play with it, expand or ignore it but you can't make it disappear by not believing in it. this is just plain absurd. ...on the other hand 'to believe in god' is a problematic state also, as you pointed out. one does not *believe* in love, pi or zero, one understands them, love experientially, pi and zero through abstract thought; there is no need to believe in god either. again this position is simply absurd. dmb says: Well, its true that our culture and history can't be understood without an understanding of the role of religion. And the existence of religious belief is an undeniable fact of that history. But I think that it matters how we interpret it. It matters quite a lot. If the only thing people ever did with their beliefs was sit around and silently believe them, there would be no problem. But people act on their beliefs and that has real consequences. Gav said: symbols are *extra-lingual referents*. by that i mean they cannot be reduced satisfactorily to a literal explanation...otherwise what use the symbol? the symbol is a bridge between the conscious and unconscious - the light and dark, the reflective and the existential. dmb says: Well, yes but I think the idea is that myth speaks in a different sort of language, one that uses concrete images to point at psycho-spiritual experience. This is where literalism does so much damage. It coverts an abstract form of expression into a reference to plain material and historical realities so that symbols like "the promised land" no longer refer to a blissful consciousness but rather to a piece of real estate. Thus Nirvana is converted into a war zone where blood literally flows. Gav said: so what is the best way to approach the concept of god? well obviously *the concept* exists! that is first. secondly the concept is *symbolic* - ie is to be interpreted mythologically, not literally. this takes us out of right/wrong, true/false territory. myth is the territory of complementarity. dmb says: Sometime I hear the argument that goes bascially like this; but I'm not talking about the anthropomorphic kind of god, not the bearded father in heaven or a personal god that one might pray to so I'm not a literalist. And I understand, of course, that there is a distinction between the more sophisticated abstract god of theologians and the childlike literalism of uneducated fundamentalist, but they are both literalists in that they believe "god" refers to an actual intelligence outside of themselves, a non-human being of some kind. I believe the anti-theistic position rejects them both. The pope and Pat Robertson are both counted as theists. So is Bin Laden and all of Republican Presidential candidates. The word "theist" is broad enough to describe the beliefs of the vast majority of people who subscribe to Judaism, Christianity and Islamic beliefs. In the United States we are talking about more than 90% of the population. According to polls, an atheist is the least likely candidate for political office. Women, non-whites, gays and lesbians would all have a much harder time winning office that would white men. But they all polled better than atheists. To exaggerate the point, I like to say that the United States will elect a black lesbian feminist mormon before it would elect an atheist. Gav said: i see you are making a distinction between atheism and anti-theism. this is fine as long as it is clear that anti-theism implies anti-atheism also. this should be obvious as 'atheism' cannot exist without the concept 'theism'. dmb says: Yes, atheism isn't really a belief so much as a denial of one. As Sam Harris points out, we all know exactly what its like to be an atheist with respect to Thor or Zeus. And it is very strange to define one's views in terms of what one does NOT believe, unless its some kind of guessing game. And most of the time atheism is a lot like Satanism, which means it simply takes the belief and turns it upside down. They only have meaning in terms of what they are inverting. I like to say that my buddy Todd is an Episcopalian atheists because that's the god he DOESN'T believe in. Gav said: and hopefully we are moving a little closer to seeing the illusory nature of the religion- science quarrel. as with all dilemmas they simply *dissolve*. etymology gives the nature of the *solution* away. dmb says: As I see it, the conflict between science and religion is rooted in that literalism problem. If myths are understood as a reference to the psycho-spiritual transformations that have been and continue to be experienced by human beings then we can at least examine the actual claims rather than the literalist misunderstandings. When literalism goes looking for an empirical basis for itself we only get ridiculous things like intelligent design or prayer studies. This is why I find Wilber's work so interesting and useful. His approach to spirituality is such that the religious literature is taken as a description of interior cognitive events rather than as external objects or historical realities. Reading it this way does not require faith or anything of the sort. When this language of myth is understood as refering to the transformation of consciousness then the claims can be checked empircially. Gav said you know i am trying to think what use beliefs are? i guess one use is when they are shared. they are creations that differentiate one group from another and cohere the members within groups. dmb says: Here is where its important to notice that historically religion has played several roles all at once. Group cohesion and the individual's integration into the larger society are among those roles. It explained the origins and purpose of the world. It also provided a political power structure, a system of moral codes to be enforced by that power structure. The differentiations of Modernity now allow us to see the distinctions between these functions and so now the power of myth to guide the transformation of consciousness can be distinguished from the functions that are more properly and directly social, as opposed to intellectual and spiritual. Things like politics, science, morality no longer have to come pre-packaged as part of God's plan. Now we can examine these domains in their own terms. Part of the problem, as Wilber tells it, is that we have gone past the point where independence and dignity of these domains has been established so that now it appears that science and religion are hostile to each other. The truths of science are used to discredit and destroy religion while religion denies and/or ignores the truths of science. This goes beyond differentiation to the point where the various domains try to colonized the others, to explain the others away. Gav said: it is clear that beliefs are always partial. they create conflict: to believe one thing is to not believe another, always. beliefs divide. the word itself is derived from 'belie': to give a false notion of. all beliefs are false, or if you like, contain a lie. dmb says: Yes, the conflicts created by religion in our world show how the group cohesion aspect of religion is obsolete. The world is way too small now. There has to be a spirituality that does not divide us into cultural linguistic groups. We need a religion that is global instead of local, that serves humanity in general rather than this or that tribe. This is why people like Pirsig, Wilber and Campbell put so much emphasis on the perennial philosophy; it excludes exclusivity of the kind that says there is no god except my god or our's is the only true religion. It preserves the heart of all religions, the mystical core of them, without including fundamentalist claims of superiority. See, its not just a matter of getting the interpretation right. There are real and serious consequences that follow from our interpretations. Look at what is happening right now in Bagdad, in the Gaza strip, on the West Bank, in Lebbanon, Syria and Iran, for example. There are other factors like oil and poverty, but there is no doubt that literalism in religion plays a huge role in these conflicts. From the point of view of an American, religion has done serious damage at home and abroad. In the United States this form of religion is part and parcel of an ideology that is basically fascist white supremacy. A memo was leaked from the justice department recently, for example, which exposed the current administration's efforts to replace black female lawyers with "good americans", as the memo put it. And by "good americans" the author meant white, christian males. Bill O'Reilly revealed the same attitude toward society at large on his TV show the other day. Pat Robertson claimed that God allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen because of the liberal's willness to accept gays and feminists and abortionists. This is just misogyny and hate disguised as theology. And many millions go along with this hateful separatism because they are seduced by the religious appeals that go along with it. Its a real problem in the USA and since the USA has such a muscular foreign policy, it is a problem for the world in general. Getting into a war with Islamic fundamentalism at a point in history when our politics has been highjacked by the religious right is a recipe for epic bloodshed. And so I think this is an issue that demands the attention of every responsible person. >From the point of view of a perennial philosopher, watching these conflicts is like watching twin brothers kill each other in a fight over who has the best father. Happy Father's Day. (Jesus bought himself a new tie because he and the father are One. This is nice because he gets exactly the gift he wanted, but it tends to spoil the surprise.) dmb _________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
