Gary Richmond wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
>[...]
>>>And the goal of any of the organized religion that I'm aware
>>>of is to tell you to stop trusting your intelligence, to stop
>>>worrying about what is rational or irrational, and to just
>>>trust what one is told, to "listen to the heart", "trust in
>>>faith", to basically stop questioning. Even those religions
>>>that have a rigorous academic discipline (such as the teaching
>>>of Christian theology and apologetics, or the Tibetan Buddhist
>>>practices of argument) are designed to hone one's ability to
>>>realize the boundaries and edges of belief, and answer questions
>>>(to both oneself and to others) on subjects past those edges
>>>(where there be dragons).
>>
> Well, this is true as far as exoteric religion goes. This is less
> true for esoteric forms (zen in Buddhism, the mysticism of Eckhart
> in Christianity, sufism within Islam, etc.) And are shamanisms
> --as in American Indian religions--"organized"? (01)
I'm glad you said "less true" because my experience with Zen and
Tibetan Buddhism would say so. In fact, I'd say that some of the
forms of societal control present in Buddhism are even more powerful
in their ability to control than in Christianity. In the latter,
you can sin, but your sins forgiven, whereas your karma is with you
no matter what. (02)
As for forms of shamanism, I was very interested in the subject in
the early 80s, read things like Harneer and Eliade cover to cover, etc.
I'd just say that in that case, the controls are at a tribal or
societal level rather than being imposed from a Vatican somewhere.
The "rules" within the Iroquois or Sioux nations were pretty strict,
and adhered to as well. Banishment, death, disfiguration, etc. were
common punishments, not to mention the self-imposed ones. I never
investigated Eckhart, but other mystical societies and orders
certainly had their own structures and rules. Then again, you do find
people like Annie Besant and Krishnamurti, who do defy categorization. (03)
But when we get to rationality vs. emotional arguments I tend to bow
out, as I said before, I don't separate them clearly or cleanly
in my mind. (04)
> This point of yours, however, cannot be too frequently restated and
> reconsidered.
> Speaking of your mother's pastor your wrote:
>
>>. .. I don't think I'd say that his "emotional brain" is running
>>the show (I don't believe there is such a clear separation in
>>function, first of all), I'd say that his "intellectual brain"
>>has had the training to allow him to believe his thinking on
>>matters of theology are rational. In this sense, he is no
>>different than you or I, or Peter, who believes his rationality
>>is not faith-based. All different sides of the same coin. [boldface
>>added]
>>
> So, we all must have faith in something to function at all (in your last
> example, rationality)? (05)
I can't remember who said it, but it's been said that you must have
faith just to get out of bed in the morning. (I've been avoiding this
lately by getting out of bed in the afternoon.) I think our entire
thinking is based on a recursively associative set of patterns that
are reinforced through recurrent observation, training, and some
encoding in our genes. Where "faith" or spiritual belief fits into
that exactly I don't know. (06)
Murray (07)
......................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK . (08)
The midrange prediction shows [global] temperatures increasing by
about 3 degrees. Under that scenario, about 1.25 million species,
or 24 percent of the terrestrial species of plants and animals,
will be extinct or on the way to extinction in 50 years. With a
rise of more than 3.6 degrees, 35 percent of species would be lost.
In Queensland, Australia, 85 percent of birds would face extinction.
In the Amazon, 87 percent of the plants would vanish. (09)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/08/MNGU045MCV1.DTL (010)
Asked how he could boast of being an environmental advocate when
he owns five Hummers, Schwarzenegger instead took credit for the
vehicle's popularity. "Eleven years ago, I took the military
Hummer and I wanted to prove you could turn it into a civilian
Hummer... Now, as you know, it's the most popular SUV."
-- the "environmentalist" Arnold Scharzenegger
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/22/MN4522.DTL (011)
--
This message is archived at: (012)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=4002218A.8010907@open.ac.uk (013)
|