From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 17:34:07 BST
Hi Arlo --
Thanks for your thoughts on my challenge question.
> Unless I am misreading, this a little unfair...
>
> If "somethingness" was what awaited, even the "non-believers" would attain
it.
> And, if "nothingness" existed, even the "believers" would fall into it.
Would a "non-believer" have enough faith in an unknown which, for all he
knows, might be eternal agony or the 'fire and brimstone' of Dante's
Inferno? My friend asked me: "Would you purchase a car on that basis?"
Wouldn't the non-believer be more inclined to trust the perpetual peace that
'nothingness' reliably affords?
I think it is at least conceivable that a challenge such as the one I've
described might be the "ultimate test" of one's belief -- whether it occurs
at the instant of death or as a life-long measure of one's belief system.
Is a voluntary choice "unfair"?
> Jung had posited that we are witnessing a crisis of age, and I see this
> worsening every year. People are more and more afraid of aging and death,
are
> running from it on the physical, social and emotional levels.
Frankly, I think most people sublimate this fear by becoming so involved in
the physical world that they have no time for concern about what lies
beyond. Marsha just posted her reactions to a recorded talk by Alan Watts.
One of his Tao-influenced admonishments was: "Don't just do something; stand
there!" I think there is wisdom in that precept. Only the human animal has
the capacity to contemplate his future. Perhaps there is a reason for this
that the mystics have recognized.
> I agree with Mark
> that religion opiates this fear, but only temporarily, and undealt with it
> grows in the psyche until we see thanatophobia epidemics. Religion
historically
> has manipulated this fear by saying that "somethingness" is guarded by
> nationalistic or tribal bounds. Only "some" will achieve "somethingness",
which
> echoes your options above. Religion asks you to "choose" somethingness or
> nothingness, as if your choice effects the outcome. Or rather, it
presupposes a
> "somethingness" that is open only to those who believe in the
"somethingness".
> Since most people have not been helped to achieve peace with
"nothingness",
> they run away from this, and right into religion's open arms.
That's quite true, as far as it goes. But why do we blindly accept
externally imposed dogma on the matter -- expecially when we realize its
manipulative intent? Philosophy is (or should be) a non-manipulative,
non-dogmatic inquiry into the unknown based on logic and reason. It seems
irrational to me that Philosophy should dismiss the core issue of human
existence on the ground that it is a matter of "faith", "spiritualism" or
"supernaturalism".
> Whether "somethingness" or "nothingness" awaits us, the key is to be at
peace
> with that.
But CAN we be at peace with that? Are YOU be at peace with that?
> Ultimately, this is the psychological maturation people should
> strive for, not dogma that tells us it has the answer, but strength not to
need
> the answer, and to be at peace.
That we cannot know the ineffable does not mean that we cannot hypothesize
its truth and value.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 07 2005 - 19:04:03 BST