[MD] new blog

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Michael]
Again exemplifying why I insist on distinguishing theism into the 
most inclusive definition (in your terminology, the esoteric only) 
and the rest, which I would refer to as "theistic practice" or 
"theistic cultural manifestations" or "religions"...

[Arlo]
And this is terminology I don't accept, namely because "mystical 
esotericism" does not infer nor demand nor point to a "god". "Theism" 
is a "belief in god, a god or gods", and is quite different from the 
mystic esotericism I am talking about. I know you want to make this 
distinction, but I don't understand why you burden yourself with a 
word ("theism") that has historically and culturally pointed to 
something else. Theism is theism. It is "god". That is NOT mystical 
esotericism. "Theism" is one (of many) human historical-cultural 
responses to Quality, which when taken with other such responses 
comprimise the entirety of the Mythos. Where "Theism" points to a God 
(even if its an indescribable, unknowable God), mystical esotericism 
points out that God is but one face of the Void. You seem to want to 
conflate "God" with this Void, but that is incorrect, "God" is only 
but one of its many, countless, historical, cultural masks. But if 
all we have is this terminological difference, that's not too bad I suppose.

[Michael]
But you seem to be suggesting you think humanity can operate any 
differently by adopting an MoQ over SOM?

[Arlo]
So did Pirsig, I'd wager.

[Michael]
How will changing the accepted metaphysics to something *less* 
tangible, obvious, or in line with what human perceptions lead us to 
believe is the case make people be relatively any less sheep like 
rather than *more*, or obviate the need for an "initiate" group?

[Arlo]
My point here was in citing Hall's belief that the human condition is 
one where the mass of people will always be like sheep. By the way, 
this contention was also held by the Apostle Paul, who had said that 
they are children, to be fed with milk, while the latter (the wise) 
were men to be fed with meat. I go back and forth in my agreement 
with Hall, finding such elitism not my taste, but then looking at the 
world and seeing so very many falling deeper and deeper into the 
sheep-like role Paul described. We are thousands and thousands of 
years advanced from our pre-historic roots, but has the human 
condition changed? Do a greater percent of the human population 
understand love, art, beauty, Arete, agape, honor, devotion than in 
the past? Do a greater percent of the modern population understand 
the mystical esotericism of the Void than a hundred years ago? A 
thousand? Ten thousand? The cynic in me says no. But much of this 
lies at the root of SOM, and a cultural revolution where this 
foundation is altered may make a world of difference. I mean, if I 
didn't think so (at least partly) I wouldn't be here.

Consider, if every Pastor, every Priest, every Rabbi, every Imam, 
every Shaman, every Monk, every Preacher-of-Any-Sort, led of each and 
every service with "all this is an analogy", would teach their 
audiences that the dress-of-language in this story is simply a 
theatrical ruse to get them to contemplate that which is always 
beyond words, always beyond our vision, and (importantly) that all 
people in all times under all manners of historical language, 
geography and custom are pointing to the same thing, and that their 
particular choice of name (Yahweh or Odin or Allah or Avalokitesvara 
or White Buffalo Calf Woman) is unimportant, that the question to ask 
is not whether "Jesus resurrected and Odin didn't" but to ask what is 
it about the human condition that resurrection stories have been used 
across history and the globe to point towards? Would the world be 
better? My vote would be yes, I'd wager so. (Of course, Hall (and 
Paul) would say such a world is impossible, that invariably the 
masses will reflock to the exoteric doctrines offered by those seeking power.)