[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Horse]

John

Whether you're serious or not is irrelevant. Saying the Social level is 
the 'Religious Level' has as much credence as saying the Intellectual 
level is the 'Individual' level or consists entirely of Subjects and 
Objects!
Belief in sky pixies or gods or god with some sort of mysterious 
creationist type mythology (which covers the majority of religions) is 
pure social level patterns.
It's basically hogwash with holes in it!

Horse


On 22/08/2014 22:25, John Carl wrote:
> 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
> 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
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com