[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[John Carl]

Horse,



On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> No it's not - religion is a social pattern, not the Social level.
> Don't be silly!
>
> Horse



I assure you, I'm quite serious.  Partly I'm trying to grapple more
seriously with religion.
I think we and philosophy in general have been too dismissive of religion
as a topic of inquiry.

But also I'm trying to clarify ambiguity in the term "social".

Human Beings are going to be religious.  It's their unique nature to be so.
This is an empirical fact.
In a way, metaphysics is simply the exactitudinous explacation of a given
culture's religious beliefs -
How people think about questions of origin and final meaning and just
because you call it the big bang,
Instead of Odin or Zeus or YHWY etc,
doesn't make any given dogma (qua dogma), NON-religious.

Any serious student of Pirsig's writings, can attest to this - clinging to
a particular world-view dogmatically is wrong and in a sense, a "religious"
fervor.
  SOM's great lie, is just this -  a map that claims to be more than a map.

So Humans are going to be religious and the question is not whether they
will conceptualize God,
but how.

"It is irresponsible of Philosophers in the Academy to think themselves
above taking "God" seriously.
If anything is clear in the present century, it is that the world's
troubles are greatly tied to how persons (beyond the Academy)
are at one another's throats over how rightly to conceptualize God. And
many are willing to kill and die for one concept rather than another.
To treat this conflict as sub-philosophical is to abdicate the
responsibility of philosophy to the world,"

Aux, T,W&P 128

What seems clear to me, is the nature of the way patterns interact and flow
- the dynamic intellectual thinking-outside-the-box of yesterday
becomes the religiously held dogmatic certainty of today.

 Thus it has always been, and so it goes now.  SOM was the intellectual
breakthrough with the Greeks, it devolved into the religion of Modernity.
When the MoQ attacks SOM, it's doing so from a *higher* le

I realize puttting SOM on the 3rd level upsets the given orthodox view of
the MOQ's structure but to my thinking it flows naturally from the roots of
the MoQ
as an economical solution to certain logical problems.

Plus it confounds Bo's SOL completely, so there's that.


John