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

[Louise Pryor]

 Bodvar wrote:

>Well, it isn't easy, the orthodox will accuse the revolutionaries of not
>being reasonable, of being ego-trippers and feel very righteous .

Lu replies:
People who were raised (steeped) in a strong religion, culture, or
philosophy, who have spent years studying, defending, absorbing it, have
some advantages, and some disadvantages.

The Jews had their law and their history all studied out and minutely
understood. So when this Jesus guy came along, there was no way he fit into
their picture. Whereas the "heathen nations" could easily say "he's god?
OK!" Now, say the story was true, and he really was who he claimed to be -
it meant a lot more when a Jew changed his way of thinking and accepted him
into their system of thinking, than it did when a person who had been
worshiping a rock all his life accepted it.

On the one hand, the "heathen" has a much easier time believing, which leads
to a simpler faith, but can also be questioned - they might believe
anything! The faith of the Jew, on the other hand has all this history to
strengthen it, but he might fall into the trap of over analysing the whole
thing, setting up another structure of strict rules.

It can work the same way here - Those of you who have been wrestling with
SOM, MoQ, deep intellectualize-ation of ideas, perhaps with a history of
accepting (or rebelling against) some religion. "Get it" (The MoQ, DQ,
etc...) in a way that I never will. I'm more like those heathen. I recognize
Truth, when I hear it, because it fits into my reality, like a puzzle peice
falling into place. My understanding has some advantages over yours,
because, recognizing the cadence and tempo of the poem I've been listening
to my whole life, I recognize (what I call) truth, by how it fits into that
poem. But those who have a much deeper, more intellectual understanding than
I do have an advantage over me because you have the why, and the ability to
understand and explain it on a deeper level.

In a way I am kind of a "nothing" person; I was not steeped in any religion,
culture, country, or extended family. My family of Origin moved so much,
between countries, the only strong unifying factor in my childhood was my
parents (even my brother wasn't a steady part - him being sent off to
boarding school in a different country). I have never felt like I "fit"
anywhere I've ever been. It took a while for me to realize why. And I have
peace with it. I married a misfit, and we are happily raising our misfit
children. I'm too "religious" to fit in with the hippies, too hippy to fit
in with the religious people. I'm too smart for the dumb people, and too
dumb for the smart ones. It can get lonley at times, but what I do have is
freedom. I'm not tied to having to protect any sacred cows, I can pick up an
idea, examine it, and decide whether it has value or not, on it's own
merits.

You said: >but I try to keep the MOQ in its revolutionary vein.

And with this I completely agree.

I agree that where Christianity (along with all other religions) went wrong
was in losing the dynamic quality that it's instigator gave to it. The river
is the most beautiful when it's alive, when it is free, when it is
dangerous. As soon as you start building dams, you make it safer and more
user-friendly, but it will eventually become stagnant and putrid if the
water isn't allowed to flow freely.

Thank you for engaging with me - it's much less lonley this way.

Lu