[MD] The MoQ.org STRANGLES Creativity

[Case]

Nice response!

dmb said:
I'd simply point out that these people are, for the most part, not Modern or
Postmodern. They're pre-modern thinkers in a post-modern world. Or rather it
is a strange hybrid of mythic and rational thinking. Its a reactionary
movement and a form of mass denial, which is a stage of the grieving
process. I think this movement is so desperate and impervious to the
evidence because its basically an emotional reaction, which is what makes it
so dangerous.

[Case]
The vast majority of people on earth are pre-Copernicans. But I
wholeheartedly agree that rightwing Christianity is reactionary. They love
to taut the fact that their number are growing while the main stream
denominations shrink. Many years ago Time magazine in an article about faith
in the USA said, that by talking about the facts of history and modern
understandings of scripture, the mainline churches had provided theological
justification for agnosticism. In doing so they basically let their next
generation of followers drift away. That's a definition of "dead" I can live
with. But there is still a left wing out there it would be nice if they
spoke up.

dmb said:
Well, like I said, the myths shine through the clap trap. I think that draws

lots of people. And there is more to it than just force of course, but its 
basically an historical fact that Christianity was an extenstion of the 
Roman Empire. They really did kill dissenters and such. I'm sure you've 
heard about the Inquisition and the Crusades. And while I'd agree that you 
can't judge a church by its hypocrites, I think that you can judge an 
institution by its history. I think we have to.

[Case]
And recovery of the myth is what I am talking about. Actually Christianity
is a Hegelian synthesis of Greek and Jewish culture. It acquired its more
obnoxious characteristics of intolerance and dogma under Roman influence to
be sure. I will not defend the crusades or the inquisition but conquest and
intolerance are found all over the planet in all times. No one is
comfortable being judged by their history, be it person or collective.  And,
after all the crusades gave us the Renaissance.


dmb said:
Can we really give all the credit to capitalism? Isn't the vast increase in 
productivity really due to technological improvements? [Snip] This is the
sort of alienation I'm taking about. Makes us feel like cogs in a machine.
You know, resistance is futile and all that. (Man, that Jeri Ryan sure is
sexy, eh?)

[Case]
I was using Capitalism as an example of belief persisting because it meets
basic needs. Christianity meets the spiritual and community needs of great
many people and I don't think it thrives because believers are forced to
believe.
Too bad Seven of Nine's husband got out of politics huh? Wouldn't you vote
for a first lady who even briefly entertained the idea of doing a private
sex show that somebody would want to watch?


dmb said:
Well yea, I'd probably have to employ different tactics if I were 
interesting in converting believers or running a political campaign. But 
that's not what we're doing here. At least, that not what I'm doing here. 
I'm talking about the conflict in values that lies behind the conflicts in 
recent history and in today's headlines. I'm talking about where theism fits

into the MOQ's analysis.

[Case]
I am here to refine ideas that have been rattling around in my head for
decades now. They are demons I can not exorcize. Yes I enjoy haggling over
the small details but I am equally interested in distilling them into
something regular folks can handle. At work the other day a woman was having
trouble taking ID card photos with a webcam and I explained to her not only
what resolution means in terms of digital photos but how helps you see the
relationship of biology to physics. Yeah, they think I am odd at work but
this did not take a lot of time and she was grateful. My point is that if
complex ideas can not be stated simply then what good are they?


dmb says:
Okay, but why do we care whether or not it plays in Peoria? I'm just talking

to you and the other MOQers. And I think it would be some kind of crime to 
cater to the Peorians if that means altering the message so as to make it 
more pleasing or whatever. Civility is a worthy cause, but intellectual 
honesty and integrity is even more worthy, don't you think? And if Asian 
rulers used Buddhism to oppress Buddhists, then shame on them. But the point

is simply to clarify the distinction between theism and mysticism.

[Case]
Ok mostly see above; but it is a challenge to simplify the complex. I
recently listened to Steven Weinberg's "Dreams of a Final Theory". He was
explaining Bohr's notion of complementary and said that once Bohr was asked
what the complementary of precision is. Bohr replied, "Clarity" I guess I am
willing to trade a little precision for some clarity.

I don't see a lot of distinction between theism and mysticism. I suppose
they are not necessarily connected but neither are they necessarily
distinct.

And there have been lots of Christian mystics. There are lots of
similarities between Jesus and Buddha. Compare the being born again with
adopting the beginners mind. Or how about putting your trust in God and
abandoning desire.


dmb said:
Compassion is a biological value? Intellect is a cheap suit for the heart? 
Huh? I can't make any sense of that.

[Case]
If not compassion take mother's love: clearly the infant must be
biologically equipped to interact with Mom and Mom must be equipped to
respond. The ability to survive as social animals implies as many positive,
nurturing qualities as it does tooth and claw stuff.

As for the cheap suit thing, I am starting to see reason as rather like
fancy feathers on a peacock. Nice to get all puffed up about but of
questionable adaptive value. Or try this: reason is not a creative process.
It is a way that some of us test things we already know or have already
decided. It is a way for us to gather consensus for what we feel to be true.
It kind of like checking our work by casting out 9s when adding lists of
numbers. But not only is it not a creative process it can be used to plaster
plausibility on any old weird thing we think. Just look at Platt trying to
gain moral high ground by comparing body counts. I am particularly
interested in Sperry's split brain work were patients were asked to explain
verbally why their nonverbal side had performed a particular act. Rather
than just saying I don't know, they would spin elaborate logical fantasies.
Short version: Intellect is a cheap suit for the heart?


dmb said:
{Snip]
They don't have our freedom. They hate our arrogance, ignorance and cultural

imperialism. And our military bases and our puppets. Okay, now I've gone off

on a tanget. But this is what I mean in saying that the world is too small 
for this now.

[Case]
Exactly, we can not judge other peoples' shared histories though reference
to our own and if we shove our history down their throats we should not be
surprised if they gag.


dmb said:
The Gnostics? I don't think the "knowledge" of the Gnostics has much to do 
with the MOQ's expansion of rationality.

[Case]
What they have in common is: faith in an idea, faith in reason.

dmb said:
So I should just give up on philosophical discussions and instead 
dishonestly repackage this idea into a form of political propaganda so as to

persuade people who are not concerned with proof? C'mon, Case, I'm not quite

that sleazy. I've been tempted to start a cult, to take advantage of such 
"thinkers" because the money is so, so good. But ultimately, I discovered 
that I just don't have the heart for such a life. Sure, there would be an 
endless parade of ego-inflating devotees and I look absolutely fantastic in 
a white robe, but I just wouldn't be able to keep a straight face. Just ask 
anyone who's ever played poker with me. But seriously, you've hit this theme

several times and I think its really pretty goofy. I don't expect Ralph Reed

or Jerry Fallinawell will be reading any of these posts and I'm not writing 
any of these posts for them. If there are people of faith who come to this 
forum, well that's might brave of them. Or maybe its just that they don't 
realize that the MOQ is an anti-theistic system. Either way, I don't think 
we need to alter anything just to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt. That

would be a case of putting social protocol over intellectual honesty. That 
would be a form of censorship, emotional blackmail. That would be a little 
bit evil.

As I see it, we are obliged to put everything on the table, especially the 
ideas that are most challenging and disturbing to us, and just let the chips

fall where they may.


[Case]
I am not talking so much about alteration as translation. If I asked you to
translate the passage above into Spanish (oops, is Arlo listening?) you
could do it. If I asked you to explain it to a class of third graders I bet
you could. Often it is just a matter of the words you choose.

I can see why you would not want to make the effort but it IS possible to
explain to Christians in their own language, why Falwell, Dobson, Lewis,
Sproul and Shaffer are full of shit.

A quick example: the bedrock of reactionary Christianity is the
"infallibility" of scripture. You could talk to them all day about why this
is unreasonable but try showing them that it is blasphemy. The commandment
is that "Thou shalt have no other God's before me." They have deified a
book. They have said that the only way a believer can hear God speak is by
hearing "His Word." This not only make the Lord of Creation a mute, it puts
the printed page above the still small voice.
In other words: Pat Robertson is a big fat Blasphemer!

Wait a minute, hold the phone, stop the presses! I just caught something I
missed in the comments above: "I've been tempted to start a cult, to take
advantage of such "thinkers" because the money is so, so good."

You say there is money in this? Talk to me brother.