[MD] Plains Talk and Pragmatism

[118]

Hi Everyone,
>


> Dan comments:
>
> It seems wrong somehow to label Native Americans as either theistic,
> atheistic, or anti-theistic. Their concept of the Great Spirit was
> completely foreign to the European missionaries. In order to stamp out
> any trace of the old religion, Native Americans were shut away on
> reservations, made to convert to Christianity by outlawing all the old
> tradtions, and even forbade to speak their own language.
>
> As far as being against education and thinking, there are a number of
> contributors who seem just that, so it is good to see you again, Matt.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
>

[Markl]
I guess I would seemingly hold another view of Theism, which would include
American Indians.  I subscribe more the notion of a Perennial  Philosophy.
 This points more to the similarities than the differences.  I understand
the need to attack a conceptualization of the Christian God as it is taught
through religion, but such conceptualization is simply a finger pointing and
can not be taken literally as some do.  It is subject object limited, and we
know better.  It is an interpretation that allows many to participate, but
it does not present the personal feeling; that is, what happens prior to
conceptualization.

We can suppose that such a thing as pre-intellectual does not exist, and any
philosophy (including religions) lies only in the intellect, as some would
propose by attacking a personal view.  To propose that Theism is somehow
less, or uniformed, or stupid would deny the pre-conceptual part.  I do not
think MOQ does that in its basis, although it has been interpreted that way
by some.  If one is suggesting that there are better interpretations, then
that is a personal choice.  Others may not feel it that way.   Strange thing
this need to find enemies or an anti-Christ.  It really does not define, and
is not intellectually derived; it points to irrationality and emotion.

If one looks into the perennial nature of these expressions, a commonality
can arise that also depicts Quality.  This would not be unusual since all
are interpreted by more or less the same brain structure.  The
interpretations of course vary depending on social and historical cues.  To
put the Western God in a box, as some wish to do, denies much of Christian
history where rationally sound interpretations have abounded.  I do not see
the purpose in approaching MOQ with the negational side unless there is some
fear of not being credited with some intelligence.  We can certainly create
the illusion of MOQ being better by putting the other forms down, but I do
not think this is necessary or appropriate for an intellectual discussion of
such.

Appreciate the read,
Mark

Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>