Sam and Group
You write:
> > Bo writes:
> > The most fundamental cultural difference there is, is the animistic
> > universe versus the non-animistic one (I forgot the term?). The
> > first was the rule from whenever humans got human and is found with
> > all "aborigines". My dictionary says that animism is the belief that
> > all objects have souls, but this is a SOM definition; they did/don't
> > view the universe through the soul/object glasses. This value-filled
> > world view got more complex up through the aeons and reached some
> > summit with the different ancient mythologies with a god for every
> > aspect of existence, weaving in and out among the mortals.
> > Now, 3-4 (?) thousand years ago in the Middle Eastern region the old
> > myth's (or many tribal) gods were conquered/merged by the one God
> > (originating in Egypt maybe?) ....
> Sam: I agree with this so far, although I can't say I would have used
> the word animism (not from disagreement, just lack of familiarity). In
> particular, this is really the subject of the story of Adam and Eve.
Thanks for your most relevant response Sam. About animism? We
have a lump term in Norwegian called "natural religions" which is
supposed to cover all beliefs other than the chief religions, maybe
that is better? The sketched development really the story of Adam
and Eve? Yes, I agree ...until further notice :-)
> > ....and the most profound shift
> > in the history of mankind took place: The world became worthless
> > matter created by a good God in one sitting and then left it.
> Sam: here I start to disagree. I'm sure Jonathan could comment more
> authoritatively, but the idea that the world was seen as worthless
> matter after the development of monotheism is not one that I think
> holds water. In particular, you wouldn't have such a focus on mundane
> realities that you find in, for example, Deuteronomy, if this world
> was seen as worthless. I would see that development as a Greek (SOM)
> influence, not Semitic, which flourished in, for example, the Gnostic
> sects (and was rejected as heretical in Christianity) and which only
> really got going with the development of deism as part of the
> scientific revolution in the seventeenth century.
Ah, this is absurdly simplified. Certainly, there was a contemporary
development at the Hellenic shores: the one interpreted by Pirsig
as the emergence of the SOM something that have influenced the
Hebrew outlook ....like Jonathan said.
The "worthless world" expression was a bit harsh maybe, but I
mean the shift from an animated world to "nature" as we see it
....OK you may say that that is a post Descartes phenomenon, yet
I maintain that this divide has its origin in a God who made a world
principally different from its creator. One may point to "holy land",
sanctified artifacts, relics ..etc. but such are tightly knit to the
deity, an aborigine wouldn't understand such.
Me quoting Alan Watts:
> > >To be free from convention is not
> > > to spurn it but not to be deceived by it. It is to be able to use
> > > it as an instrument instead of being used by it. The West has no
> > > recognized institution corresponding to Taoism....
and commenting:
> > > ...What Watts says is that tying social moral/value to (a) God is
> > > wrong because it's impossible to change them without a feeling of
> > > revolt against reality itself.
> > > ....In moqish: The social level's purpose is to control the
> > > biological one and Intellect's is to control the social, all
> > > produce "damage" to the lower, above is (only) described social
> > > mankind's (Confucianism) "damage" to biological mankind, while
> > > Taoism's "repair" isn't possible because in the SOM tradition
> > > there are no such distinction, we have inherited the
> > > God-is-Society idea that screws it all up.
> Sam:
> What I understand Bo's point to be is this: that in the West to be
> religious meant being socially conformist,
Right, only that in this context "East" is the Far East while "West"
includes the whole Semitic religious/cultural sphere which the
West still is part of ...at least until the MoQ is recognized.
> whereas in the East there
> were two complementary methods of being religious (confucian=socially
> conformist and taoist=non-conformist) which therefore legitimated
> religiously inspired change of the social order (and avoided all the
> hangups that led to the over-reaction and absolutist tyranny). Is that
> about right?
I don't know if the Chinese regard Confucius a religious teacher,
this is possibly the very fulcrum: To be a good citizen isn't regarded
a transcendental quality, but simply social good. Nor is Taoism
any belief, except in freedom. And - according to Watts - what
make these societies so immense stable is that religion (Taoism)
does not interfere with society but is the necessary "repair" of its
stricture, according to Pirsig they have reached a symbiosis
between the the Dynamic and Static aspects of existence. As
such some proto MoQ.
Tao sages surely inspired people and thus changed society - from
within - slowly, or a Buddhist monk burning himself to death
brought about political change, but not like in the Semitic Tradition
where socio/political changes are a revolt against God's order.
Look to the present situation where Islam shows this tendency the
best, but is at the bottom of all Semitic religions. I mentioned the
French and Russian revoluttion that had to take on this atheistic
flavour for excatly that reason ...atheism is of course as "religious"
as anything. Watts lower down in the same quote:
> "When the throne of the Absolute is left vacant, the relative usurps
> it and commits the real idolatry, the real indignity against God - the
> absolutizing of a concept, a conventional abstraction..."
Finally the MoQ view: Western culture took over the SOM baton
(=Intellect in my opinion) after the Greek and has made it its focus
and the ensuing clash with social-value - at first in Europe itself -
became THE conflict of post-enlightenment age and has now
reached universal proportions . It so well explains all unrest and
wars including the Fascist/Nazi phenomena and the present Islam
issue ...and whatever is seen in its light. But as no-one
acknowledge the MoQ, everything remains a complete mess. I
would have liked to hear that Robert Pirsig has been appointed a
special advisor to the Bush administration .....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST