Re: MD Religion of the future.

From: InfoPro Consulting: Mark Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 04:46:49 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "FW: MD The Individual Level"

    Hi,

    Just buttin' in.

    Is there a way to approach DQ without religion? I'm enjoying this thread, and
    am very familiar with ZMM and Lila, and neither of those books in any fashion
    endorses anything approximating religion, as far as I can tell.

    Noam Chomsky has said that he thinks it's dangerous to let one's life be
    motivated by non-rational belief systems, and provides plenty of historical
    evidence in support. Just wondrin' what y'all think...

    On 3 May 2004 at 9:26, Valuemetaphysics@aol.com wrote:

    >
    > 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

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything."  
    -- Henri Poincare'
    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 May 04 2004 - 04:44:59 BST