Re: MD secular humanism and dynamic quality

From: Matthew Poot (
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 21:07:43 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD SQ-SQ coherence and the cosmos"


    Just a brief post+quote here, concerning secular thinking

    "The relation of the present to the past and future was alywas considered. If you concieved the past and future to be all contained in the present, why, that was groovy, the present was what you lived for. "

    --->"And if your motorcycle is working, why worry about it? But if you consider the resent to be merely and instant between the past and the future, just a passing moment, then to neglect the past and future for the present, is bad Quality indeed. The motorcycle may be working now, but when was the oil level last checked? Fussbudgetry from the romantic view, but good common sense from the classic."

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David MOREY
      Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:06 PM
      Subject: Re: MD secular humanism and dynamic quality

      Hi all

      Actually I take an interest in a religious group that
      says that all religion is a human creation and is open
      to quite a lot of dynamic speculation see:

      SOF has a large number of atheists/humanists involved too.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Leland Jory
        Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:38 PM
        Subject: Re: MD secular humanism and dynamic quality

        On Mar 25, 2004, at 2:15 AM, Sam Norton wrote:

          I think you've slightly misunderstood what I'm driving at. I didn't think you'd disagree with the
          'basic tenets' point, so I was wanting to drive you towards explaining the language that secular
          humanism provides to enable that Dynamic evolution of the basic tenets. Which essentially you've
          answered by saying 'free speech' (which I think is right). Yet, on the other hand, on pragmatic
          grounds, you rule out religiously grounded criticisms of secular humanism, so in effect you're
          saying that "secular humanism can evolve through free speech (except religious free speech)".

        I'm jumping in here to say I don't think there is such a thing as "Religious Free Speech", especially in terms of comparitive theology and philosophy. The reason for this stance is that most (if not all) religious rhetoric is based on a very static set of value patterns. In my experience, there is no room for truly free speech in a traditional religion, because the religious power structure has usurped Truth, and they aren't willing to change their view of it. Free speech, on the other hand, requires dynamic flexibility of one's view of Truth (because anyone interested in truly free speech recognizes that Truth is a dynamic thing).

        So, the statement "Secular humanism can evolve through free speech (except religious free speech)" is self-evidently true because 'religious free speech' is a contradiction in terms.

        I'm putting on my asbestos jumpsuit now, because I fully expect to get flamed on this. ;^{)>

        Leland Jory :^{)>
        Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher

        "It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." - Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 25 2004 - 21:07:34 GMT