[MD] Intelleigence and Religion and dynamism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mary, Craig, (Khaleed - sorry for the spelling in advance, I don't want
to go back to find exactly where I saw your posts...)

I have just peeked down at what you two are talking about.  It looks
real nice.  I hope to have something to say in a moment.  But there are
a few things I want to say first, which I think will help us all move
forward.

one: I think the most reasonable thing a living entity can *do* is to be
religious.  I also think that, for this, one must take personal
responsibility.  I wonder if plants are continuously praising the proper
god!  Anyway, I think an intelligent person must admit when he doesn't
know; and then hope for forgiveness if he has gone awry.  This I think
is the central aspect of Islam, as I have come to apprehend through my
reading of an americanenglish translation of the Quran.  I think that
this was the major advance that Allah provides over
God-and-the-Holy-Spirit.  However, I think that such an isolating
position is too much for any man.  It is pure mystical crap from that
perspective.  And would want that?  Anyway, I think that the rest of the
Quran is pretty redundant, it gets boring and oppressive real fast.  I
think the bible is far more complete and free in that sense.  From my
mystical experience I might use the analogy that the Quran is the
Masculine, and the Bible the feminine: after all, wouldn't a man try to
take the worst of it for his wife?

I must interject something which is my own humble opinion here.  The old
testament proscribes against homosexuality and lesbianism.  I think this
is to be understood entirely as mystical.  I think that the metaphysical
fundament cannot be gay!  However, biological gayness here in proper
spacetime is a whole different thing.  Not only should it not be hated,
it should be loved.  Watch: while fundamental-metaphysical gayness is
proscribed, because life couldn't agree to that, there needs also to be
a metaphysical proscription for death: if life might go way wrong, if it
is a starting in the middle, with naught but hope, it would be a wise
thing always to carry along the option for death.  So, in this extreme
limit where one is wondering whether or not death might be better, it
might look gay.  It might look like dudes trying to hook up with dudes,
or chicks trying to hook up with chicks, but it isn't.  It is friendship
and neighborliness in the utmost.  "I don't want this, and you don't
want this; let me get your back while I get yours: the not-beast with no
backs!"  I suspect that biological queerness is just how this
metaphysical analogy manifests itself in proper spacetime.  Though I am
not gay, I embrace it fully.  If you don't believe me regarding myself,
I don't care, but I find a different conclusion hateful.

Either way, I think human text will always be flawed.  No matter how
close we can come, I don't see how the mystical can ever be properly
proscribed.  We are within the mystical.  If we love it right I think we
can try to leave it out of us.  Such a burden is far beyond any solitary
neighbor, and it is far beyond any essence of neighbors.  If you love
the devil too, I think he will love trudging out our mistakes.  Take
responsibility for your choices: what else is there?  Can we reserve for
everyone here the right to say "no" without also forcing them to choose
death?  Anyway, from my perspective it seems "Jesus" was up against this
with no help whatsoever!  I am glad that I had so many neighbors who had
given themselves up to him, so that I knew that, if worst came to worst,
I could try this too.  Has it helped?  If it hasn't, I stand by my
testimony: I think that Jesus - with, for me, a real whopping portion of
the unknown too - is worthy of my trust: if I want death he will oblige.
 I see death as the ultimate "no", and I do not see this as hateful or
evil.  Besides, how can one tell the difference between metaphysical
death and metaphysical sleep?  Who chooses to be born?  Anyway, I do
feel that it is he who has forgiven my sins.  While I can not explain
this intellectually, and I do not care to relate my "journey" in the
abyss, I do have faith in the forgiveness of sins - and - to be sure,
the starting in the middle I choose was Jesus, lest anyone come to think
that I have turned unfaithful.  I never gave up myself.  This seems to
be the prerogative of an 'I', male or female - we are all neighbors,
whether we say otherwise or not.

Is life worth it?

I hope so.

I'll take responsibility for my part, but I am just a little part.  I
respect your rights as equal to mine in this regard (sorry for the
curveball, the distortion always finds outlet: it is a blessing and a
curse, eh? --- this distortion both grants us our individuation in
essence, and it proscribes us from apprehending it's fullness ----- if
you love it properly... anyway, I hope that there is still something
worth living for, amidst the unknown.

Let me now see what Mary and Craig have said:


On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:11:01 -0600, "Mary" <marysonthego at gmail.com>
said:
> Hi Craig,
> 
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> craigerb at comcast.net
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:03 AM
> [Mary before]
> >  the highest attainment of that metaphysics is a set
> of PoVs which value symbol manipulation and science  > and technology
> over
> social values

[Tim]
is this the MoQ over the MoM?

> 
> [Craig]
> IMHO the MoQ levels do not show relative value, but the evolutionary
> chain
> of value.
> For instance, biological PoVs evolved from the interaction of inorganic
> PoVs, but this does not mean we should value the HIV virus over oxygen.

[Tim]
hmmmm... are the MoQ levels a negation within which proper evolution can
proceed?  For instance, within the social, isn't it evolutionary to go
from 'I' centered-ness, towards an "other", via an "essence": a
collection of 'I's who respect the foundation as 'I', but hate the idea
of being alone?  Is not forgiveness the fundamental, mystical, quality
which is there, even if we can never pinpoint it?

> 
> [Mary]
> What I may choose to 'value' intellectually or emotionally is not
> required
> to be the same thing as what has the highest value in MoQ-ese

[Tim]
isn't it quality that is simple, and morality which is complex. 
Wouldn't it be gay - metaphysically - to try to make them either the
same or lovers?

.... well, I'd like to stop now, maybe I'll come back to it, maybe I
won't, I will play as I like.  I like to think that I have earned it.  I
also think that I hold on to humility and love as strongly as ever, so
if I flub it up, I think that I am forgivable, and worthy of
forgiveness.  I have said thank you to all.  Let me also say "I forgive
you" to all: but that is only for the past.

your neighbor,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                          or over the web