[MD] Religious experience & thinking in an MOQ context

[Heather Perella]

Hello,

     I have a short comment at the end of this
interesting post.

     David M. said: 
> "For me there is plenty of scope for religious
> thinking and experience in the 
> MOQ.
> In fact I think we can improve the quality of both
> in such a context.
> 
> Like science, I think fundamentalism makes the
> mistake of being obsessed 
> with SQ
> and even worse, fundamentalism fears DQ and its
> constant change and 
> development.
> Of course, science does much to master SQ (the order
> of things), its 
> limitation is
> that it can act as a block to recognising DQ (the
> disorder and creativity 
> that allows
> for change and development).
> 
> In the past life was much harder, grasping the very
> limited amount of order 
> and control
> available to human beings was crucial. Understanding
> and social order 
> required a keen
> grasp of SQ and even an attempt to increase the
> amount and levels of SQ to 
> protect
> human beings against the power and disruption of DQ.
> 
> In the beginning came a new word and a new authority
> to bring a new order. 
> This came
> with a whole ideology of gods and morals and laws to
> justify and explain the 
> new order.
> 
> In this sense DQ comes first and last. SQ is used to
> limit the DQ, so that 
> something can
> be built, a foundation laid, a level created. But
> then DQ returns on a new 
> level, bubbling
> forth a new level of SQ, with a new levelof creative
> power and complexity.
> 
> After the religions of SQ, order, control, authority
> it is possible for new 
> religious thought and
> experience to emerge. New religious thinking, like
> new science, is starting 
> to open its eyes
> to DQ. Experience is not full of order, there is
> very little order in 
> experience and the world.
> We are much more aware that we are not protected by
> some divine force today, 
> we face
> all kinds of personal, social, political, global,
> cosmic risks. But equally 
> we have vastly more
> possibilities than earlier ages. Modern religious
> thinking is about the 
> contemplation of
> experience and a reality that is vastly free,
> contingent, open and risky. 
> Modern religious
> thought is about our human relationship to the
> dominant dynamic quality of 
> experience and
> existence. It a a vast sea change from the old
> religious thinking about what 
> is permanent
> and beyond the reality of experience in some rather
> dull transcendental 
> realm.
> 
> Over to you.........

  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?    

SA

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