From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 - 15:38:46 GMT
Chin earlier) - I've been thinking some about this. This is where my problem
comes
with denying a religion, even if the religion is
suppressive/exclusive. You don't change a view by telling the viewer
they are wrong. You change the view by offering a better view;
showing how a higher Quality view is better.
msh asks:
Why is believing something that is false better than believing
nothing? IOW, why must you have something better to believe in, in
order to change your view? When presented with evidence
contradicting your belief, can't you simply suspend belief and begin
your own investigation?
Hi msh,
Something false? I can't really say. Do we have evidence supporting a fact
that there is no masterful mind at the center of the universe? and/or do we
have evidence that after we leave the physical world that we are no more
than worm food? We can theorize in these areas, but we can't prove, other
than accept the theory as proven from more evidence in one way or the other.
Our current mythos would lead us to believe that this theory is not
illusive, but the mythos changes; it evolves, and as we gain a better
understanding of the universe, our mythos changes to reflect this scientific
discovery or mystical enlightenment.
I do not disagree that the static patterns of society in the US have not
evolved enough to sustain a society that may be lagging other parts of the
world, and I am thinking Buddhism and Hinduism here. Buddhism and Hinduism
are religions though. In my more simple observance, I might think Hinduism
to be the more evolved, as it accepts all religious beliefs; it may be the
least exclusive/suppressive. Hinduism has evolved though. They did not
suspend all beliefs for the scientific beliefs(?)
Is the US advancing/evolving? I must say yes. Our majority, and major
minorities are still based on the traditional Christianity, but as we accept
the true minorities into our churches, it would seem to me that we are being
forced to look at other faiths/views; this is a less exclusive/suppressive
view. We are evolving.
In the past, this has come in waves of two steps forward and one step back;
major steps.
By joining into the conversation over mysticism, I had hoped to find some
answers to questions as to how we are born with certain intuitive knowledge
that can't be explained away by science, and gain knowledge intuitively that
can't be explained by our objective and subjective experiences, even
splitting them into the four levels as opposed to the two. Once again, in
my simple, nonscientific observance, it doesn't appear we are all born "Dumb
as an ape," and only advance our intellectual knowledge through experience;
classroom experience or environment experience.
To cut this short, it doesn't explain mystical experience, or where this
mystical experience comes from.
msh) - Does the MOQ require maintenance of low quality static patterns just
because there's nothing better to replace them? What about mu?
Here, I think the MOQ simply states that without DQ, SQ would simply
discreate without creation to advance a society; low quality static patterns
cannot sustain themselves without change.
Please forgive my ignorance, what is 'mu'?
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 : Sat Dec 25 2004 - 15:53:37 GMT