[MD] John's Reading of Absolute Idealism Confirmed by Bob

[skutvik at online.no]

Lu

1 Aug.:

I had written::
> we have a Christendom which is heavily
> > intellect-influenced, I just hope it will become MOQ-influenced and
> > turn into out as some some Western Buddhism.

Lu:
> I like what you said (as far as I can grasp your meaning). But rather
> than any religion becoming more like some other religion, wouldn't it
> be better if all religious people could wrestle with the MOQ, embrace
> it, and move in that direction? 

Embrace the MOQ? But it is in its embryo phase (stem cell) it can 
turn out any  way like Christendom could have after Jesus' departure. 
You possible know all these "Da Vinci Code" books about alternative 
outcomes (Jesus not dying on the cross, being transported to other 
places with wife and children). As it was Paul won out, Jesus became 
a divine person and Christendom continued as a sect of Judaism with 
some more complicated divine "family"

I feel the MOQ being in a similar stage, it may turn out a continuation 
of SOM with some more complicated "levels" We have had our 
"Paul" (Turner) who "converted" DMB to the present orthodox 
interpretation. I won't go into the finer points of the controversy, but I 
try to keep the MOQ in its revolutionary vein. Our "Jesus" has turned 
so vague in his old days that he can be interpreted any way.        

Your John does not understand the grave danger I speak about 
regarding the "close but not it" approaches to the MOQ, but either is 
the former metaphysics (SOM) MOQ's intellectual level or it isn't and 
in the latter case the said level is a mental compartment that contains 
ideas - SOM one idea and the MOQ another idea - and nothing is 
gained, the MOQ will - as I said - continue as a slightly more 
complicated SOM.  

> Any argument can be either ego based, or it can be truth based. By
> that I mean the point of arguing can either be: to be right, or to come
> to deeper understanding. Whether we are arguing religion, MOQ or
> whatever, I think that being able to discern my own motive is
> important. Too many people just want to be right, are convinced that
> they are right, and are only trying to win. What's the point here? 

Well, it isn't easy, the orthodox will accuse the revolutionaries of not 
being reasonable, of being ego-trippers and feel very righteous . I 
have no ready answer, but when reading ZAMM I had this vision of 
Phaedrus having the dreaded SOM by its throat and was disappointed 
that LILA seemingly let go of the hold. Some other may not feel 
oppressed by SOM - hardly understanding what it is - and to them all 
this bickering  seems pointless. They may even miss SOM's enigma, 
there are those who fall in love with their tormentors (the Stockholm 
syndrome)

 Bodvar