Re: MD 'unmediated experience'

From: phyllis bergiel (neilfl@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 15:18:32 BST

  • Next message: phyllis bergiel: "Re: MD Quality events and the levels"

    In response to:
    >
    > : Ever hear of these folks? I'm not affiliated in any way, just wonder if
    > : anyone sees this as an alternative to the traditional or individual
    mystical
    > : religions.
    > : http://www.ethicalhuman.org/whoweare.html
    >
    > Sam said:
    Interesting site. I do sometimes think that the basic choice to be made is
    between whether life is
    > meaningful or not (Wittgenstein: "to believe in God is to believe that
    life is meaningful"). That
    > stance does not have to be explicitly religious, eg with Camus'
    existentialism, but it does require
    > an ethical stance and associated notions of self-worth and value
    judgements. If this stance is
    > followed through to the end, I suspect that the practical outcomes are
    indistinguishable, eg a
    > consensus that torture is wrong and giving food to the starving is right.
    (Hence, for Jesus - not
    > everyone who says 'Lord Lord' goes to heaven but those who do God's will,
    ie healing the sick,
    > visiting prisoners, clothing the naked etc etc). So the fundamental choice
    is between saying that
    > there is Quality or denying it. If Quality is acceped, then there are
    various ways to ascend the
    > mountain - which must, if there is Quality - be able to be compared and
    assessed.
    >
    > I think the choice that life is not meaningful is the essence of 'absurd',
    and is ultimately
    > unsustainable (ie leads to the various forms of 'suicide', not all of
    which involve killing). I
    > suspect that many who reject a meaning for life are simply not wanting to
    undergo the psychic stress
    > and labour of investigating the matter, and in practical terms, they act
    *as if* life was
    > meaningful, even when they deny it.
    >
    > What do you think?

    Now there's one that is hard to grasp. "Life has no meaning" as in just
    atoms colliding? Understandable on a purely intellectual, scientific level.
    But, as the MoQ points out, even those atoms are changing towards
    perfection. Not that something is purposing that movement.
    >
    Personally I think the denial is more to do with laziness and apathy and
    ego - so many ways to go wrong.

    With many noteable exceptions, especially including those on the MoQ, I
    think this is why many people jump on the religion bandwagon. An answer is
    provided, directions are given, and if its wrong, it really was soembody
    else's answer, wasn't it? Why is thinking such a chore to so many?

    Phyllis

    ps Sam - I'll send you some comments on essay, just taking a short vacation
    from academic "stuff" for a bit and want to do it justice.

    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 : Fri May 16 2003 - 15:13:44 BST