From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 19:00:00 GMT
On 2 March 2003 11:43 PM Sam writes
Hi David,
> snip>
So for you theology is about social values?
OK, we have social values and we have intellectual values, let's agree on
that. Intellectual values are derived from the social level, through
reflection and consideration of them etc etc. In other words, they are
abstracted, they are conceptual, they are 'the manipulation of symbols'. Now
it seems to me quite plain that you can abstract the values that are
embedded in the Church/State separation and say that these values are being
enforced by that separation, moreover that the Chuch/State separation is a
consciously chosen (intellectually driven) manipulation of the social
level - let us make society in THIS way (for reasons of avoiding war,
enthusiasm, etc etc). Embedded in that evaluation is a view of 1. Reason, 2.
Religion, 3. Church, 4. State - and probably much else besides. It's a
theology - or whatever word you choose in answer to my earlier question.
> snip>
Hi Sam, DMB, Wim and All,
joe: I approach metaphysics and religion from a theory of how I know. Based
on Persig's emphasis that a baby learns, and that I can experience undefined
quality in rhetoric, I accept that I have an instinctive sense of reality.
Words relate to patterns formed by a combination of instinct and memory. I
act. I experience instinctive purpose. Another can see a pattern in my
actions, but ordinarily my awareness of my actions are unique to the
instinct for purpose. My actions produce patterns in my awareness only
after many repetitions. Gurdjieff proposes that Original Sin, the fall of
mlan, is that only pleasurable actions instead of all actions prompt us to
form patterns of our actions in our awareness.
Is this "instinctive sense" the same spiritual faculty as mind? I don't
think so. I think "abstraction" complicates the description of a sentient
being. When Persig wrote about "indefinable quality" and "instinctive
learning" by a baby, he did not make a distinction between mind and body.
All babies learn, everyone can experience "quality." If this is untrue for
an individual, it is a physical fault of the body. There is no way to know
if the mind or will exists.
Freedom adheres to the possibility of purpose. An instinct has an
orientation. The instinct for self-preservation does not require a
different dimension from the instinct to "reproduce," merely a different
orientation. Mind and will are abstract complications. When I see
"different brains" I am pointing out the difference in patterns.
Suppose
DNA creates a field aroundf a body, like gravity around a planet. Many
animals exhibit an awareness of all parts of their bodies even their tails.
the activity of the instincts of a sentient by activity creates a different
field. in the beginning this field created by instinctive activity seems
tied to the field generated by DNA, then the baby would have only one
awareness. After growth and education (activity and training of instincts)
the field produced by the instincts would be much denser, and the individual
becomes self-reflective. After further education the field produced by
instinctive activity is dense enough to initiate activity of its own. Thus
the individual sentient forms a soul which can become integrated with the
existence of the planet etc.
How do I perceive religious Faith? I accept Aqauinas's characterization
that Faith is a gift or grace. I can accept the gift or reject it. I
instinctively sense existence. In sensing existence I experience a
certainty of the other in relation to existence. In existence I sense
levels after I have experienced and remembered many patterns. To the
highest pattern I give the name, God. In this bare bones exposition I am
going immediately to Grace. By Grace I experience a quality and purpose
which I attribute to this pattern of existence, God.
As a sentient I have other instincts for quality and purpose, but from the
time of the fall only one awareness. The development of quality and purpose
is tied to my level of existence. Faith is a certainty that my instinctive
sense of purpose and quality has been superceded. With this assurance I
accept dogma from a revelation of stories from a different existence. The
reason for accepting dogma for my actions could be that I am aware that my
instinctive sense of purpose is a law unto itself. I can act from an
awareness of instinctive purpose derived from a low level, or a denial of
other realities. I am ignorant.
Through Faith the Revelation of purpose and quality is certain. The
certainty of Revelation, is derived from the certainty in the instinctive
sense of existence. In society I am certain in my actions from my
instinctive sense of purpose. Also in society I am certain of my patterns
(ideas) from an instinctive sense of quality. Why do I claim that the
certainty in revelation can only come from an instinct for existence, and
not from the other instincts? To me existence seems prior to actions or
patterns. I am not certain of many patterns, and I am easily diverted from
one pattern to another. My actions bewilder me. It is as though in order
to know and do, I must exist.
In society I ordinarily communicate and relate to others from trust. I
trust what society tells me. When I act I am certain and I am responsible
for my actions. My instinctive sense of purpose determines my actions and
my responsibilities in society. If I act from dogma which depends upon my
certainty in existence for my actions, my actions flow from a different
purpose. The different sources of my actions demand a separation of Church
and State in determining my responsibilities in society. I exist in society
with a different purpose than in Faith. "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's,
and to God what is God's." Matt. 22:21. To that I would add: and to me
what is mine.
Certainty of action in religion has one source the instinct for existence.
Theology is the reconciliation of dogma taken from the stories of
revelation, to my instinctive experiences in society. Theology is social,
Faith is personal. Are society and religion the same? Responsibilities in
a society are from my actions. Responsibilities in my religion are from my
experience of existence and Faith. A judge imprisons me for murdering an
unbeliever. This is moral since I have denied my Faith. By abandonning my
instinct for existence, I deny my Faith. The certainty of existence needed
for Faith is compromised and only a trust in the pattern of Faith remains.
The Crusades and the Inquisition etc. were morally wrong.
A society based on revelation like a monastery overrides an individual's
instinct for purpose. It is a closed society since freedom for action from
instinctive purpose is denied. Only initiates are allowed to join. The
initiate from Faith consents to a rule and loses freedom, except when the
rule is broken, changed, or no longer exists. Freedom to leave or be thrown
out of the closed society is guaranteed by agreement.
In secular society the only way to leave the laws of a particular state is
through immigration, exile or expatriation. Place matters. In the closed
societies of religious communities, place does not matter.
IMO the proofs for the existence of God by Aquinas are based in SOM which is
based on a division of existence which is unnecessary, and are faulty. At
the end of his life Aquinas experienced some futility in what he had
written.
Joe
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 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 18:59:14 GMT