[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

David M,

DM said:
My own thought is that god is an answer to very legitimate
questions, feelings, problems. To date it has been a wrong answer,
and so have other answers. I think this is what Heidegger means when he
says we are waiting for a New God after the death of the old god.
How would you describe the current insanity?

Scott:
Same as the old one, except that there is currently a large number of 
intellectual people who would deny this Original Insanity, namely, the 
secular.

I don't think one can say that God was the wrong answer. It is more that 
insane people turn the sane answer into an insane one. The best we can do is 
to realize that tendency in ourselves, hence the value of negative theology 
(though it too can be twisted), and I why I call for an ironic metaphysics. 
The logic of contradictory identity is intended to be more of a prophylactic 
against this tendency than an "answer".

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


> David M,
>
> DM said:
> Are the feelings mankind has had in relation to idols
> appropriate in relation to something else? I think so,
> I wonder if we agree as to where they might be appropriate?
>
> Scott:
> I think not, if I understand your question. The problem with idolatry is
> that it gives one the idea that one understands God (or whatever), and
> that
> means one stops thinking about the problem. Now there are two points to
> make. One is that what I am saying is "Not for Everyone". It is just for
> people who take an intellectual path to salvation. The second is that what
> I
> am saying presupposes the "insanity" business. This is just another name
> for
> what Buddhists call "avidya" (ignorance), Hundus call Maya, and Christians
> call Original Sin. That is, there is something basically wrong with the
> unreflected ways we think about things. These ways work for getting along
> in
> the world, but they fail when applied to the problem of salvation.
> Idolatry
> is applying these ways of thinking to God (or Emptiness, etc.). To accept
> an
> idol is to stay within our insanity.
>
> - Scott
>
>>
>> Scott:
>> In my point of view, there is no non-negated without differentiation,
>> which
>> is what I oppose in your essentialism. There is no undivided source
>> ontologically prior to differentiation or negation, nor is
>> differentiation
>> a
>> source. There is, that is, no source above and beyond what is, which is
>> CI,
>> which is consciousness, value, and/or semiosis (or a bunch of other
>> non-things), depending on the point one wants to make. Such a source is
>> an
>> idol. I like to think (but could be wrong) that CI avoids being turned
>> into
>> an idol because it cannot be thought through (cannot be "understood").
>>
>> - Scott
>>
>>
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/