From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 14:26:05 BST
Mark said to dmb:
I agree with you that a religion of the future would do well to concentrate
on it's very source, but then, it would become a mystic religion? In this
sense, its quite a bit different from anything by which current religious
institutions shape themselves?
dmb replies:
Yes. I think the churches of today fail as windows to DQ and instead serve a
strictly social function. The religions of the future, one might hope, will
be very different indeed if they are mystical. They will serve our spiritual
needs, not just our social needs. This is the heart and soul of religion,
and its precisely what's missing from "mere christianity". Just in case
you're not sick of Wilber yet...
Mark 3-5-04: Hi dmb, Thanks for this. I am not at all sick of Ken Wilbur, but
is Ken Wilbur sick of me? ;)
I don't feel Humans have a spirit - an underlying eternal substance. The
Buddha argued against such a description and i agree with this view; no Atman,
unless Quality is Atman? Our 'spiritual needs' are, i feel, in the language of
the MoQ, a drive towards Quality. Quality has us - we participate in it. So...
When I was a youngster, and being the mad scientist type, I used to collect
insects.
Mark 3-5-04: Aristotle did the same thing. Aristotle observed and collected
data as a superb botanist would, and more: he was an anthropologist and all
round scientist. He then developed a metaphysics to explain what these substances
are and how they relate in a hierarchy. In other words, he applied a rational
methodology, like Wilbur. Intellectual Quality.
Central to this endeavor was the killing jar. You take an empty
mayonnaise jar, put lethal carbon tetrachloride on cotton balls, and place
them in the bottom of the jar. You then drop the insect - moth, butterfly,
whatnot - into the jar, and it quickly dies, but without being outwardly
disfigured. You then mount it, study it, and display it.
Mark 3-5-04: Scientific endeavour is Intellectual Quality. The MoQ tells us
science is art; it's an aesthetic - and at the heart of this endeavour is the
same thing which generates religion.
If this is realised, then science and religion merge, which is what Wilbur
wishes for us to appreciate is it not? And in merging, science and religion
become different.
Displaying a dead husk is also an aesthetic? The term, 'killing jar' is
emotive. The question here is a balance between killing and learning, and depending
on one's patterned state at the moment of reading, a value will be placed
upon it.
The pre-established harmony which created the moth resonates with all other
Quality patterns? Perhaps this is why people like Aristotle and Wilbur become
very excited by them in the first place - they are beautiful.
I know i feel the same way.
Academic religion is the killing jar of Spirit.
Thanks.
dmb
Mark 3-5-04: I agree. But we may be more precise? Academic religion is
becoming static - it wishes to be Intellectually Dynamic while arguing against
Intellectual freedom to posit the unpatterned.
Intellectual activity has the moral authority to place organised religion in
the killing jar and better understand what it is? Neither Intellectual nor
social activity have the moral authority to place DQ in the killing jar.
You explained this recently by describing Sam's project as involving an evil
aspect. I agree with you.
All the best,
Mark
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 : Mon May 03 2004 - 14:28:28 BST