From: Paul Vogel (nitzke@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 22 2004 - 19:08:50 BST
Dear Wim Nusselder,
Cosmotheism for me is the religion that best fosters or that best enables
the evolutionary expression of Quality in human and in all life, or, it is
what best fosters the internal and inherent drive of Dynamic Quality within
the COSMOS in partnership with human conceptual static patterns because
COSMOTHEISM places HUMAN QUALITY or HUMAN ARETE' or HUMAN EXCELLENCE of
BEING of both the individual as a WHOLE and of LIFE and COSMOS as a WHOLE as
BEING at the very center of both the religious and spiritual experience and
at the center of the eternal strivings of both the individual and of the
community as a WHOLE towards ever higher levels in CONSCIOUSNESS of the
WHOLE and in ever higher levels of HUMAN BEING towards GODHOOD.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
http://www.cosmotheism.net
>From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD quality religion (cosmotheism)
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:57:43 +0200
>
>Dear Paul V.,
>
>I intend to give cosmotheism a fair treatment in this thread. I copied
>underneath one of the earlier postings in which I stated the (my) purpose
>with the thread.
>
>Like almost anyone contributing on this discussion list I am -until now-
>biased against cosmotheism as presented. I participate in patterns of value
>(patterns of bias) like Quakerism (the Religious Society of Friends) and
>the
>Green-Left party in the Netherlands. I can't blame you for associating such
>biases with your 'social-marxist' category (even if I wouldn't call myself
>a
>marxist or a socialist). I 'am' more than the patterns of value (bias) I
>identify with, however, and so are you. Beyond my biases I 'am' able to
>respond to DQ and as a Quaker I want to be open to 'truth'/'light' from
>whatever source it comes.
>
>I invite you to present cosmotheism again, concentrating on its religious
>practice rather than on its beliefs. Remember that in 'Idols' (or 'American
>Idol' as it is called in your country) it is the 'singing' that is compared
>and not the 'songs'. I will then try to question you with an open mind.
>
>My alternative (Quakerism) was presented 12 Mar 2004 08:30:40 +0100. I can
>forward it to you if you wish to question me on my main biases in the field
>of religion.
>
>Please be aware that I am participating in a lot of threads and in
>discussions with a lot of others on this list and may at times not be able
>to reply for up to months (especially now that I am going on holiday for 3
>weeks next month). Please don't let that lead you to doubt my intentions as
>stated above.
>
>With friendly greetings,
>
>Wim
>
>----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
>Van: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
>Aan: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Verzonden: vrijdag 12 maart 2004 9:30
>Onderwerp: Re: MD quality religion
>
>
> > Dear Sam and others interested in an 'Idols'-like competition between
> > religions,
> >
> > You wrote 11 Mar 2004 07:46:05 -0000:
> > 'What an intriguing idea. I'm game - although I suspect it'll be a
>volcanic
> > sort of debate ...'
> >
> > Great, I already hoped that you would want to find the time to
>participate.
> > I don't understand at all those fears for 'volcanic debates' etc.. Did
>you
> > notice that (music) 'Idols' competitors end up as friends? At least
>Dutch
>TV
> > shows very moving pictures of fraternization every weekly round when
>someone
> > is voted out of the competition again... It must be because everyone is
> > equally dependent on hardly influencable votes from an anonymous public.
> > That may of course be a bit different if we enact a 'religion Idols
> > competition' only in this maling list.
> >
> > You suggested 'without having any expectation of generating agreement':
> > 'Firstly we (rapidly) agree some sort of criteria by which we can make
> > assessments.'
> >
> > I don't agree. (-; As I wrote 11 Mar 2004 08:32:13 +0100:
> > 'The interesting thing about the "Idols"-model is, that the voters don't
> > need to agree on a definition of music/religion, nor on the criteria for
> > good/better/best... Exchanging definitions and criteria IS useful, but
>only
> > as a way to influence other people's votes (and as a model to present
>one's
> > favourite religion, but everyone presenting a religion is free to
> > choosehis/her own model). In the end both "music"/"religion" and the
>"idol"
> > (the
> > "best") are simply defined by the number of votes.'
> >
> > My idea is that someone starts presenting a religion as soon as we think
> > that enough people on this list may be interested to present their
>favourite
> > religion as potential 'idol' and to vote on it.
> > For the presentation you can use the criteria (and definitions) already
> > mentioned (see my 10 Mar 2004 23:32:28 +0100 summary of the preceding
> > discussion plus your 'what religion best fosters or enables the
>evolutionary
> > expression of Quality in human life, or, what best fosters the drive of
> > Dynamic Quality in partnership with human static patterns'). E.g.: "For
>me
> > religion X is good, because it fosters Quality in way Y." (On second
> > thoughts these presentations better not state "religion X is best for
>me".
> > Everyone should ideally submit to the 'final' decision of the voters. A
>few
> > mistakes in this respect won't seriously harm the process, though.) You
>are
> > completely free to ignore a few and introduce new criteria when
>presenting
> > your religion, however.
> > Those who react to this first presentation can choose to either present
> > their own favourite religion or to question the one who made the first
> > presentation. "How does your favourite religion perform on this
>criterium
>of
> > mine?" (Disputing other people's words on how their favourite religion
> > performs on a specific criterium is counterproductive. Indeed 'we should
> > allow each religion to wear its best clothes, be seen in its best light
>as
> > demonstrated by its best adherents', as you wrote. In reply to a
>doubtful
> > claim that religion X performs in way Y, one CAN refine the criterium
> > however and reformulate the question "How does ...?" in another way.)
> > When we seem to have exhausted presentations and (constructive)
> > questionings, we can start voting.
> >
> > In short: I see three main phases and two moments in which we need to
>reach
> > some sort of consensus.
> > First phase: enlisting participants
> > Second phase: presentations and questionings
> > Third phase: voting
> > The second phase starts when we agree that (it seems as if) enough
>people
> > are interested to participate.
> > The third phase starts when we agree that we have more or less exhausted
> > presentations and (constructive) questionings.
> >
> > With friendly greetings,
> >
> > Wim
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 3 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
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 Jun 22 2004 - 21:02:17 BST