From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 03:49:03 GMT
Our analogical mind is limited by our language. We inherently name things,
people, and events. We name our self, 'I'. We are self aware. This is also
how we see the world. Everything we experience is a 'Self' experience. Through
self-knowing, we see the suffering of others. We inherently see the justice or
the injustice of a victim. This to me means that we are connected to God,
the Creator, the Source, and/or Mother Earth. We named subject, object, mind,
matter, form and substance to better communicate with each other. This is
'Modern Man', so I am not saying it is bad.
Christianity is not bad, as it does get us in touch with God. It gives us
recognition of the Creator. It allows us to know we are not an "Island among our
Self." Raised as a Christian, I don't see where this idea that man and
nature are separate from God came from, but I was raised Pentecostal -- that may
make some difference. But, "all our intellectual descriptions are culturally
derived", I can see. The Mythos that went before the Logos, the current Logos
does agree with this "transcendent God" in that Christianity does separate
itself as above the other religions. Call some Christians religious, and they
will be offended. Others would agree that God is too big for one religion.
I do not see the MOQ as denying Christian beliefs, or even scientific
beliefs, if the mind is open enough to be unbiased in its search for knowledge. The
problem, I would agree, would be the "Traditional" Christian and scientific
beliefs. Not that "'I' am an island within myself," but "'We' are an island
within ourselves." The traditional Christianity I am relating to here, is the
White Man's Christianity that states we are above the African American, the
American Indian, and of course the Hindu as well. This is the Logos that will
be replaced by the current Mythos, that will soon become the Logos, or static
quality we may once again question at some future date.
In "the reality of the world is intellectually unknowable", it is difficult
for me to see how this becomes philosophical mysticism, but I would agree that
that would be the better path to take. Would there be any difference in
dialectic terms between mysticism and spirituality?
It seems we are in agreement, as "reality is undivided and undefinable" 'Is'
what I have been trying to say. This is what I call Aristotelian
'Slicing-n-dicing' of the universe. Though we need the subject and object to help us
communicate, it really has no meaning, as subject and object can only describe.
"Description is not philosophy." -- Shaw (I think) I see the benefit of S&D
as long as we recognize its limitations. I see the benefits of science as long
as we see its limitations, and I see the benefits of religion, as long as
none are excluded.
I see a lot. Huh? :o)
Chin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 21 2004 - 05:36:47 GMT