Re: MD Religion of the future.

From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 18:52:41 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Religion of the future."

    On 3 May 2004 Mark writes to DMB:

    DMB:
    Academic religion is the killing jar of Spirit.

    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.

    Hi Mark, DMB, and all,

    joe: i admire the tenor of the post and the search for answers. I do not
    accept the term 'evil' in describing Sam's project. 'Evil' is immoral. In
    an MOQ atmosphere writing a religion is a degenerate activity much like
    writing a metaphysics. Wim has equated DQ with God! I do not go that
    route, but God is certainly as undefined as DQ.

    How to write a metaphysics of religion? Degenerate squared! Religion of
    the future is a cesspool.

    David M 29-4-04: Is the whole-man then an impossibility? I don't know.

    joe: to identify the intellectual dynamic element in intellectual patterns
    Bo suggested that s/o (subject/object) is the intellectual pattern. His
    project was degenerate. I will be degenerate and add 'unfinished' to Bo's
    suggestion. Intellectual pattern is a mystical acceptance of unfinished
    s/o.

    I am going to be more degenerate and suggest a way to identify a social
    pattern. The separation of Church and State indicates a division of social
    quality. SOM proposed a division of existence into intentional existence
    (subjective) and real existence (objective). Accepting the real existence
    of God was impossible in SOM. I hope mystical is accepted in MOQ. Pirsig
    accepts a hierarchical order of inorganic, organic, social, intellectual
    evolutionary levels. The value of existence!

    I degenerately accept a pattern of existence, a pattern of order as the
    social pattern. One order, society, another order, religion, based upon
    existence. So what is the difference? To be cute I would say the evolution
    of the planet is social, the evolution of the universe is religion, but I
    have no idea what I am talking about? What is beyond planetary evolution
    and growth? What does it mean in terms of dq to accept the Sun to be a body
    of fusion? The big bang is dq? Religion is an acceptance of order beyond
    order? Doubletalk! Society is an acceptance of order. Both are accepted
    in the dq of the social order?

    Joe Maurer

    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 : Wed May 05 2004 - 19:14:06 BST