[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 12:28:41 PDT 2015


Arlo,

I like your rocket booster analogy. It reminds me of one I'd shared
before, on this list only in that one, it was a rocket launch pad.  In
other words, they can't even get off the ground a little bit.

And maybe there is something to the analogy because while it takes a
whole support team to get off a launch of a new perspective, there can
only be one or a few astronauts in the space capsule - Space - the
heavenly abode above.

  religion helps to boost people out of the gravity of their situation
- their situation is they are caught between the dust and the sky and
don't know which way to turn.


[Arlo]
This is a condemnation of S/O science, and I would think we all share it.

jc:  Condemnation?  Science is a great tool.  So is the self.  I don't
toss out a tool, simply because I find out it is not absolute, not
"god".  So I'd correct your adverb there, and say we all share the
non-absolutization of S/O science.  But that's not a condemnation of
S/O science.

Likewise I'm arguing for the non-condemnation of religion.  Just
putting them in their rightful spheres, hopefully.


Arlo:

But "nature as your religion" (in the John Muir way) isn't really
'religion', its trying to coopt a term of value from within the S/O
discourse, when, of course the solution is to evolve from the S/O
discourse.


Jc:  Let me clarify where I'm coming from when I say I have Deep
Ecology roots.  George Sessions' thesis was a crtique of the
environmental movement for its anthropocentric ontology.   The problem
with our current socio-governmental policies was that they took the
interest of man, apart from the rest of nature.  But man is NOT apart
from the rest of nature, but but analytic intellect pretends to be and
it is this pretension which is so dangerous and harming, in the world
today.   Applying the science of environmentalism in a scientifically
objective way, only exacerbates the harmful effects of this pretension
because objectivism is paradoxical, in the end and scientists know
that.  That's why they "don't go there" or do metaphysics.

With that being said, the need for a different values system, by which
natural rhythms are sought as opposed to techno-digital rivers of
little depth, is a religious need.  Early religion and all religion
since, has not been about what it's followers argue over, it's been a
need to comprehend the distance between us and the stars.  Looking
upward, and all around, we see a world which defines us and we pretend
it's just all an abstraction or make the mistake of taking our
abstractions as final.

that sounds confusing... let me  clarify later...



Arlo:

We all (I hope) love and respect and care for our families, but you
don't hear people say "families are our religion" because our culture
normalizes love-for-family. My point is you don't need 'religion' to
justify love-for-nature, you just need a heart.

The point isn't simply caring.  It's about valuing correctly.


Valuing value, so to speak.  I get that.  I do.

The tricky thing is, "you" don't need a religion because religion
isn't really an individual thing.  Don't listen to the lies of the
televangelists who say otherwise!  It is their technique to divide and
conquer.  Religion is a social pattern and you need it for organising
large groups into cohesive wholes.  You can't have a cohesive whole,
made up of individuals with disparate values.

Now the MoQ solution is, on the face of it, value Quality!  But any
religion has to rely on defined value so some sort of static idea has
to be presented so everybody is on the "same page".   The fact that
this static representation is 'only' static, is a perspective given to
few.  The astronauts and mountain climbers, et al.

Here is the point of discussion - can religion be tamed to do good in
the world?  I say yes and everybody else says no.  (though Ron has
wavered a time or two)  That link I posted to the Islamic use of
PermaCulture, was evidence in favor of my side of the argument because
it shows that intellectual ideas can affect religious societies in
ways that are beyond religion's ability to see or control.  But
intellect only does good by criticizing and changing social patterns.
Shunning them as "beneath us" is stupid.  Plain and simple.



Thanks Arlo,

John




On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:45 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>
> [John]
> And I felt it touched upon an explanation of myself, a bit.  For people who wonder how an intellectually-oriented person can dabble in religion.
>
> [Arlo]
> I heard an analogy the other day I really like, to restate it, in many ways 'religion' is like the solid rocket boosters under a space shuttle. Their goal is to lift the shuttle into orbit, and fall away when no longer needed. Of course, there are other ways to achieve orbit, one does not NEED solid rocket boosters. But when these boosters fail to fall away, when they remain attached to the shuttle, ultimately the shuttle will fail to achieve a sustainable orbit and will fall back down to the ground.
>
> In this analogy, 'mythology' is the larger set of the knowledge of the many and different ways people have to achieve orbit. Sure, for some solid rocket boosters can be a very useful tool. But when religion does not detach, when it locks itself into its inerrant or exoteric forms, it actually becomes a hinderance. At the level of mythology, 'religion' is viewed (as Joseph Campbell does) through its esoteric form, and valued as its ability to lift- and then detach- and ALL means of achieving orbit can be viewed and discussed as all lifting wo/man to the same heights (the monomyth) and challenged when they fail and pull wo/man back down to their (in this analogy) spiritual deaths.
>
> So by "dabble in religion", I hear you say something like "dabble in solid rocket boosters", which is fine, so long as we share an understanding that there are many other ways to achieve orbit, some might be better for others and no one in particular is either necessary nor required, and some (call it The Cult of The Solid Rocket Booster) need to be condemned for failing to use the tool properly.
>
> But if by "dabble in religion" you mean support those who demand the solid rocket boosters never decouple, or that everyone NEEDS solid rocket boosters in order to achieve orbit, in short if you either support or fail to criticize The Cult of The Solid Rocket Booster, then, yes, I would wonder how an intellectually-oriented person dabble as such.
>
> Of course, all this is just "losing my religion", as REM sang.
>
> [John]
> Well according to Deep Ecology, you must find a way to make nature your religion. practical scientific mind is not the way, it has no provision for Value.
>
> [Arlo]
> This is a condemnation of S/O science, and I would think we all share it. But "nature as your religion" (in the John Muir way) isn't really 'religion', its trying to coopt a term of value from within the S/O discourse, when, of course the solution is to evolve from the S/O discourse.  We all (I hope) love and respect and care for our families, but you don't hear people say "families are our religion" because our culture normalizes love-for-family. My point is you don't need 'religion' to justify love-for-nature, you just need a heart.
>
> 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




-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play with boundaries."



More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list