[MD] Religious experience & thinking in an MOQ context

[Heather Perella]

Hello,


> SA:>  So religious thinking of the past was more
> focused
> > on static quality and today, it is more focused on
> > dynamic quality.  I know in another thread you
> brought
> > this up ([MD] False Messiah).  If you would like
> to
> > discuss some of the points you brought up with Ant
> and
> > I commented upon with questions in this thread it
> > might be prudent.  I am wondering if belief and
> all in
> > its' sphere of thinking is religious in nature. 
> Or,
> > as science would need philosophy for thought, does
> > philosophy and science and other fields of
> knowledge
> > need religion for belief?  Or is there something
> else
> > to this?    
> > 
> >
> 
> DM: Rather I think the religious future, if it has
> one, needs
> to focus on DQ, which is what lies beyond science
> and its ability to describe & quantify SQ.
> Personally
> I do not see the word 'belief' as very useful. I
> think the
> true religious impulse is about the relationship of
> existence
> to DQ, theflux, creativity & death. I think critical
> thought
> (about life, experience, knowledge) has to examine
> all the
> same territory as religion, science and philosophy
> any subset
> of these would be missing something. All the rest is
> history and story telling.

     When you say, "existence" in the above context
within "...the relationship of existence..." do you
mean static quality, and therefore the relationship
between static quality and dynamic quality is the
flux, death, and creativity that the awe of religious
impulse is found to be due to these being moments
where static is meeting dynamic or vice versa.
     "...critical thought (about life, experience..."
"...same territory as..." and you mention philosophy. 
I thought critical thought is exactly philosophy. 
Thus, philosophy is in the same territory or found to
be in all fields of the human sphere, according to
what you are saying?  Some fields have latched onto
static quality in which the static filter has very
small holes letting not much DQ pass through and
become part of  the current world view.?

     Kevin said:  "But it seems to me the better
answers and the greater truths come from a balanced
integration of both SQ and DQ.
     As much as I value the incarnational mysticism of
my faith I have come to learn that in the absence of a
community it's all vanity.  The mystical reality
experienced inside, to be real, must be connected with
the world outside.  And there's the challenge.  The
exterior world is all about signposts, flag waving and
protective walls and fences: This way to
enlightenment!  Our group is better than your group! 
Members only!  And the interior world is all about
what the signposts point to, the values and the
meaning the flag represents and interpersonal
relationships.
     So the notion that the Metphysics of Quality is
anti-anything (ref. other posts and other threads)
seems to me to be contrary to a fundamental truth."

     Well said, in your pointing that groups do to
signpost enlightenment, and how individuals identify
the signposts, value, and find meaning in which the
signposts point towards.  Anti-anything, well,
wouldn't some quality 'things' of the world fail and
seem to last not as long as other similar 'things' do,
such as ideas?  Sure, everything has quality, some
'things' have poor quality and others more excellent
quality.  Yet, the duration of any kind of quality
provides its' state of existence with some form of
quality, that fundamental truth we are discussing and
even debating at times.  Balance... now that is the
age old wisdom wouldn't you say?  
    

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com