[MD] Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 38, Issue 145

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [MP said to dmb]
> I'm Christian.
> 
> [DMB]
> Obviously.
> 
> [Arlo]
> As one who has come out in the favor of esotericism, metaphor, and
> Campbellian mythological treatment of "theism", I had some hopes
> that 
> Michael was pointing in that direction, and maybe there was just 
> misunderstand. And then he wrote, "He sent us Christ to show us it
> can be done" and I realized, quite sadly, this was not the case. 
My beliefs are mine, I'm sorry they sadden you. I do however have the capacity 
to recognize them for what they are (I did, several posts back) and to think both 
rationally and intellectually even when that line of reasoning leads me to think 
and consider things that refute my beliefs. I like to call it "an open mind." ;-)

I expounded on specifics of my theistic belief not out of a masochistic need to 
field ridicule, but to express to dmb how theism can also be a cause for the very 
thing he said he claims can only be acheived without it (albeit on an MoQ higher 
evolutionary) and that he claims cannot be reached by it. It was to try to explain 
my contention that theism's being on an evolutionary lower level does not 
preclude its (THEISM's, not religion's) ability continue to achieve Quality. 

We've seen what "abolishing" theism does while MoQ evolution has not 
progressed enough to render it vestigal. I fail to see how anyone can call for it 
again without first trying to address the MoQ social evolutionary level problems 
they associate to it at their face. 

Theism exists. You can't wish it away no matter how bad you think it is. If you 
reject it as a positive force of any kind, the only thing to do is to keep moving 
society along in ways that don't rely on it. Trying to suppress it will only force 
greater static resistance. What's needed is a social Dynamic quality movement 
away from theism, not a knee-jerk social quality immune system panic attack. 
Frankly, dmb's attacking theism as I see here seems very "staticy" to me.

Or, borrowing the parallel discussion's analogy:

If a baseball players' superstitions make them play more confidently, and as a 
result with greater Quality... where's the justification in calling for abolition of 
superstition? Because others do poorly for holding the same superstitions? You 
can't force players to be unsuperstitious no matter how much you intellectually 
badger them about it, and if you abolish it all you will do is make them *all* play 
worse because they rely on their superstitions to play well.

The meaningful aspect in all this is the quality of play, not the superstition. So 
instead it seems to me the more intellectually honest approach is to work on the 
quality of play until the players see they don't need the superstition, not try to 
attack the superstitions.

That's all I've really been trying to say.