Goal of spirituality (was: Our Lil Buddy)
Ingeborg S. Nordén
Andross <and...@mail.wsu.edu> wrote:
[argument over validity and purpose of idols snipped]
> yes! that is the goal of spirituality... to attain a buddha level
> consciousness and communicate DIRECTLY with the deities... but that is a
> skill almost imposible to develop without any sort of physical aids!
I realize that MOST of the regulars here are followers of an Eastern faith; I
respect that and am not trying to convert anyone. However, the idea that all
religions MUST teach similar ideas in order to be spiritually valid, strikes
me as rather dogmatic. The regulars in this forum know that I am a Germanic
pagan, and that many of my beliefs are incompatible with anything Eastern:
* No final, perfected state exists. Life in the ordinary world should not
be rejected or transcended for the sake of some greater end: if the gods
had wanted us to live that way, they would not have put this world here.
Earning a good reputation and living honorably are more important than
"god-consciousness" as an abstract state.
* Matter and spirit are NOT necessarily opposed; they simply coexist, and
neither is inherently better or more real.
* Gods and other supernatural beings are distinct individuals. None of them
are perfect or unlimited in power (although they are still greater than
humans). Although people should develop a strong, close relationship with
the spiritual world, "merging" with another being to the extent of losing
identity is alien to Northern belief. Any power greater than the gods is as
impersonal a force as electricity or gravity; merging with such a thing
would be meaningless even if it were possible.
Does believing any of those things make me "un-spiritual"? I should hope
not...I've had deep spiritual experiences that didn't contradict the ideas
above, and still have a very close relationship with a god who would be very
offended if I called him an aspect of anybody else! <g>
Nor do I see a belief in multiple, individual gods as incompatible with a
belief in scientific law. All gods exist; but they have to run the universe
by a set of fixed rules, no matter how a culture describes their activity in
symbolic terms.
Ingeborg S. Nordén
(rune...@msn.com)
"Ej uti Sion, utan i Svithjods land
bodde min gud, då han på jorden var..."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ingeborg S. Nordén
[argument over validity and purpose of idols snipped]
> yes! that is the goal of spirituality... to attain a buddha level
> consciousness and communicate DIRECTLY with the deities... but that is a
> skill almost imposible to develop without any sort of physical aids!
I realize that many people reading this are followers of an Eastern faith; I
Ingvi
Very well said,mat hat comes off to you.
INGVI
RtR<<
Ingeborg S. Nordén
Ingeborg S. Nordén wrote in message <7b7v0n$lfr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>[my long comparison/contrast of Germanic vs. Eastern beliefs]
ooooops! For some reason, that last one got posted twice by mistake (and DN
doesn't even allow that usually). My apologies for the error!
Ingeborg S. Nordén
(rune...@msn.com)
H4P1A3S1
>However, the idea that all
>religions MUST teach similar ideas in order to be spiritually valid, strikes
>me as rather dogmatic.
Hmm... right before I signed on and read this, I was pondering the following:
"Reification is the apprehension of human phenomena as if they were things,
that is, in non-human or possibly suprahuman terms. Another way of saying this
is that reification is the apprehension of the products of human activity as if
they were something else than human products - such as facts of nature, results
of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will."
IMEHO:
Whatever way we want to look at it, religion is essentially a human product
which in recent times has been subject to varying degrees of reification with
jarringly discordant results. While post-modernism consciously and
unconsciously has demonstrated that many truths can and do co-exist in the
world, reactions to that still take on the characteristics of earlier systems
of thought which continue to co-exist with it.
The recognition of varying truths while insisting upon an underlying
"metatruth" is more consistent with a (chronologically) earlier model of
thinking in which the options seem to be either rejection of claims to
spirituality or a fallacious homogenity imposed by reference to a reified
notion of "spirituality."
Just a random observation.
Respectfully,
Morgan
"I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
"Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for
them?"
--Wm. Shakespeare: Henry IV, Part I, Act III, Scene I
S. M. Hewitt
<inge...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
...Hail, Ingeborg Nordén! Hail, for a clear, no-nonsense statement of
the obvious! Very, very well put.
>* No final, perfected state exists. Life in the ordinary world should not
>be rejected or transcended for the sake of some greater end: (snip)
*Life* exists, and -- rather than perfecting it, or the creatures in
it -- we should try to learn about what *is* around us daily, rather
than pining for some ideal. Perhaps, if we look hard enough, that
ideal already exists. My take on it.
>* Matter and spirit are NOT necessarily opposed; they simply coexist, and
> neither is inherently better or more real.
...matter and spirit are complimentary. We are emerging from a
millenium of "matter is a lie, suffer through it in a search for the
divine". Recognize what is...both spiritual and material, and strive
to recognize how the coexist. Again, my take on it.
>* Gods and other supernatural beings are distinct individuals. None of them
> are perfect or unlimited in power (snip)
...omniscience and omnipresence were great religious marketing tools
in their day..."My God can kick your God's ass!"...but begs the
question: "If life is such a shit-hole, which we are meant to endure,
and if (insert name of deity) is so damned powerful, then why is life
such a shit-hole?"
All-powerful individuals exist in comic books and video games.
>Does believing any of those things make me "un-spiritual"?
...absolutely not!
>Nor do I see a belief in multiple, individual gods as incompatible with a
>belief in scientific law.
...exactly...science is an attempt (often as doctrinaire as
"organized" religion) to understand how things work. Science
compliments spirituality. Science for the material, religious belief
for the spiritual...and where they overlap, a good, solid grounding in
both is useful to keep from being confused.
>Ingeborg S. Nordén
>(rune...@msn.com)
...to which MORGAN replied:
>Whatever way we want to look at it, religion is essentially a human product
>which in recent times has been subject to varying degrees of reification with
>jarringly discordant results. While post-modernism consciously and
>unconsciously has demonstrated that many truths can and do co-exist in the
>world, reactions to that still take on the characteristics of earlier systems
>of thought which continue to co-exist with it.
...exactly.
My point:
* The Multiverse has no "secret password".
* There is no *one* Law of the Universe, which we will one day
discover if we study or dissect or pray enough, if we are worthy or
wise or blessed or academically honored enough.
* Learn about the world, and about the spirituality which abounds in
it. Acknowledge what you find, and compare it with what others find
(which is called "study"), and add your voice to the chorus if you
feel called upon to do so.
* Human folk are no subjects of the Multiverse, but live in it on
human terms, the Gods of people on divine terms, animals on animal
terms, huldu folk on their own terms, etc. How they
interrelate...which, I believe, is less heirarchical than societies
have come to believe...is religion, science, and several other human
disciplines -- all created by humans to help bring order in what they
do understand from what they do not understand -- not yet named.
* Far from being "unscientific", following a tradition which includes
multiple Gods acknowledges what the people of that tradition have
discovered, and what they've constructed for themselves once they've
compared notes.
* One God, one all-powerful cosmic Judge Dredd, one Divine
Terminator, is no closer to a mystical and mythical "Center of Truth
and Wisdom" than is usint a Ouiji board to contact the 1919 Black Sox.
It is religious and cultural *imperialism*, nothing else!
Spirituality is only one facet of life. An unbalanced life -- one
which gives spirituality too much or too little attention -- is a sad,
incomplete life, as would be a life lived belittling or ignoring
science for "religious" reasons.
The "goal" of spirituality? A good life, honorably lived in context.
We are the people we are, when we live, children of our people,
tenants of Midgarð. Others have their own traditions, but this one is
ours.
-- Steve
********************************
Hail Óðinn AllFather, wise and friend of the wise.
Hail Týr, a strong and constant friend.
Honor to the Scholars and the Warriors.
Honor to the folk of the Æsir.
********************************
H4P1A3S1
>science is an attempt (often as doctrinaire as
>"organized" religion) to understand how things work.
Well, even science (for the most part) has given up on the idea of "absolute"
truth in favour of a conception of "the truth as we understand it right now...
subject to change upon presentation of further evidence."
>* Far from being "unscientific", following a tradition which includes
>multiple Gods acknowledges what the people of that tradition have
>discovered, and what they've constructed for themselves once they've
>compared notes.
You've jumped a few steps ahead of the argument I was making, but...
I believe this is an imminently valuable tool because once we give up on the
idea that there is one ultimate and ultimately identifiable truth, we are left
with a bewildering array of possibilities. In order to achieve some sort of
grounding rather than remaining forever adrift without an anchor, a
polytheistic religion seems to me to be an answer which encompasses both a
rational discrimination (drawing the line as to what one chooses to believe) as
well as an acknowledgement of the variety in which that which we identify as
divine can present itself.
Also, in the case of a religion such as Asatru, which contains a strong
cultural as well as a spiritual component, it provides a further base upon
which to ground a solid rather than an ever-shifting identity, a starting point
from which to evaluate and understand other information.
In our daily life we are presented with such a wide variety of discourses from
such a wide variety of sources, I find making the conscious choice to establish
a basis from which "meaning" in a larger sense can be discerned an extremely
practical, sensible thing to do. Nothing "mystical" about it whatsoever :^).
Dirk Bruere
> >* No final, perfected state exists. Life in the ordinary world should not
> >be rejected or transcended for the sake of some greater end: (snip)
>
> *Life* exists, and -- rather than perfecting it, or the creatures in
> it -- we should try to learn about what *is* around us daily, rather
> than pining for some ideal. Perhaps, if we look hard enough, that
> ideal already exists. My take on it.
Not to mention most people who practice Zen Buddhism.
> >* Matter and spirit are NOT necessarily opposed; they simply coexist, and
> > neither is inherently better or more real.
> ...matter and spirit are complimentary. We are emerging from a
> millenium of "matter is a lie, suffer through it in a search for the
> divine". Recognize what is...both spiritual and material, and strive
> to recognize how the coexist. Again, my take on it.
Not to mention most people who practice Zen Buddhism.
> >* Gods and other supernatural beings are distinct individuals. None of them
> > are perfect or unlimited in power (snip)
> ...omniscience and omnipresence were great religious marketing tools
> in their day..."My God can kick your God's ass!"...but begs the
> question: "If life is such a shit-hole, which we are meant to endure,
> and if (insert name of deity) is so damned powerful, then why is life
> such a shit-hole?"
We get to make of it what we want (collectively and individually). Free
will.
> All-powerful individuals exist in comic books and video games.
Anyone mention God as an individual? OK... a few Xians maybe.
> >Does believing any of those things make me "un-spiritual"?
> >Nor do I see a belief in multiple, individual gods as incompatible with a
> >belief in scientific law.
> ...exactly...science is an attempt (often as doctrinaire as
> "organized" religion) to understand how things work. Science
> compliments spirituality. Science for the material, religious belief
> for the spiritual...and where they overlap, a good, solid grounding in
> both is useful to keep from being confused.
It's the fight at the border over territory that's the interesting place
to be.
> >Whatever way we want to look at it, religion is essentially a human product
> >which in recent times has been subject to varying degrees of reification with
> >jarringly discordant results. While post-modernism consciously and
> >unconsciously has demonstrated that many truths can and do co-exist in the
> >world, reactions to that still take on the characteristics of earlier systems
> >of thought which continue to co-exist with it.
> ...exactly.
Well, that's pretty obvious, so I'll let it go...
Except a feeling that the 'many truths coexisting' bit really is
intended to read 'many conflicting truths coexisting'. Which is wrong by
definition. I just hate the 'post modern' crap. i'm just waiting 'til
tomorrow until we move on to 'post post modern'.
> My point:
>
> * The Multiverse has no "secret password".
>
> * There is no *one* Law of the Universe, which we will one day
> discover if we study or dissect or pray enough, if we are worthy or
> wise or blessed or academically honored enough.
Tell that to the scientists searching to the Theory of Everything.
So, do you tend to the view that the underlying reality (if there is
such a thing) is not a unity?
...
> * One God, one all-powerful cosmic Judge Dredd, one Divine
> Terminator, is no closer to a mystical and mythical "Center of Truth
> and Wisdom" than is usint a Ouiji board to contact the 1919 Black Sox.
> It is religious and cultural *imperialism*, nothing else!
There is room for disagreement. However, I think the problem stems from
the Morons guide to Xianity that most people are vrought up on by
default. That is, having a view of God as 'Him', a big white man with a
long beard, when clearly such a thing must be alien to the point of
human incomprehension.
> Spirituality is only one facet of life. An unbalanced life -- one
> which gives spirituality too much or too little attention -- is a sad,
> incomplete life, as would be a life lived belittling or ignoring
> science for "religious" reasons.
Shit, more Zen. Have you been reading Forbidden Books, or catching
'Enlightenment'?
> The "goal" of spirituality? A good life, honorably lived in context.
> We are the people we are, when we live, children of our people,
> tenants of Midgarð. Others have their own traditions, but this one is
> ours.
Agreed.
Dirk
H4P1A3S1
>Except a feeling that the 'many truths coexisting' bit really is
>intended to read 'many conflicting truths coexisting'. Which is wrong by
>definition
Not necessarily. Actually, the notion that all truths must be reconcile with
one another is a perfect example of one of the aforementioned "earlier systems
of thought."
> I just hate the 'post modern' crap
Whatever you happen to feel about it, it's here to stay as a condition of the
world as we live in it.
S. M. Hewitt
wrote:
>Not to mention most people who practice Zen Buddhism.
>
>Not to mention most people who practice Zen Buddhism.
>
...spent too much time lately, I guess, staring at my raked sand
"garden". Which is hard to accomplish around my house, with the all
of the din my wife makes clapping her hands, one at a time.
>Well, that's pretty obvious, so I'll let it go...
>Except a feeling that the 'many truths coexisting' bit really is
>intended to read 'many conflicting truths coexisting'. Which is wrong by
>definition. I just hate the 'post modern' crap. i'm just waiting 'til
>tomorrow until we move on to 'post post modern'.
...I'm not sure when modern stopped, and when we became post modern.
Must've been a milestone. Not even sure what post-modern is supposed
to be. Must be one of those distinctions akin to the differences
between Impressionist and Expressionist. The distinction eludes me.
>> * There is no *one* Law of the Universe, which we will one day
>> discover if we study or dissect or pray enough, if we are worthy or
>> wise or blessed or academically honored enough.
>
>Tell that to the scientists searching to the Theory of Everything.
>So, do you tend to the view that the underlying reality (if there is
>such a thing) is not a unity?
I won't bother talking to scientists...they are the clergy of their
own religion, with its own exclusionary, "hidden arts" dynamics.
A unity? I tend to consider Midgarğ in human terms...every person is
different, and we all have a lot in common. To judge us individually
alone, one would come to believe that life is chaos. To consider
things only from the commonalities, people would be no more than ants.
We are individuals with a great deal in common.
Unity? Another way of levelling people, saying that no one is
better...that nothing is better than anything else. My opinion.
>Shit, more Zen. Have you been reading Forbidden Books, or catching
>'Enlightenment'?
...no...and I don't meditate...my knees can't take the strain of
sitting on a bamboo mat, and if anyone were to come along behind me
and whack me with a cane rod, it'd take half an hour to unfold out of
the lotus position to kick his sneaky ass.
>
>Dirk
...we just know some of these ideas because Zen has been so eloquent
in expressing them. I think that they are more universal than all
that...a commonality cross-culturally expressed by individuals.
-- Steve
********************************
Hail Óğinn AllFather, wise and friend of the wise.
Hail Tır, a strong and constant friend.
S. M. Hewitt
>Also, in the case of a religion such as Asatru, which contains a strong
>cultural as well as a spiritual component, it provides a further base upon
>which to ground a solid rather than an ever-shifting identity, a starting point
>from which to evaluate and understand other information.
>
>Respectfully,
>Morgan
...consider this:
We, as a people, children of our culture, which is a product of our
knowledge of life informed by our religion, have one take on life.
Now, down the street, Mr. Ngombe, the Yoruba heathen, with his own
tradition, shares some of our beliefs...for instance, he probably
values honor, celebrates self-sufficiency, and sees wonder in the
spirituality of the natural world...but differs both in detail and in
the wider view of things. He is a child of his tradition.
Now, his tradition explains the world to him, ours to us. We can
learn from eachother, but remain who we are.
Considering this...and being wise enough to value that which is not
your own...can we not be more respectful of "the other guy". We can
acknowlege the differences, and let him get on with his life. In this
light, we can be proud of our people and take nothing away from the
humanity of others.
This is a Folkish perspective on heathenism, and one in which racism
is impossible.
-- Steve
********************************
Hail Óðinn AllFather, wise and friend of the wise.
Hail Týr, a strong and constant friend.
Dirk Bruere
>
> >Except a feeling that the 'many truths coexisting' bit really is
> >intended to read 'many conflicting truths coexisting'. Which is wrong by
>
> Not necessarily. Actually, the notion that all truths must be reconcile with
> one another is a perfect example of one of the aforementioned "earlier systems
> of thought."
You mean, like science and reason? Right. Odin is Mohammed in disguise,
or is this a 'truth' that conflicts with... er... truth?
> > I just hate the 'post modern' crap
> Whatever you happen to feel about it, it's here to stay as a condition of the
> world as we live in it.
You mean we no longer live in the modern world? well, that might figure
for some in this NG.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> >Not to mention most people who practice Zen Buddhism.
> ...spent too much time lately, I guess, staring at my raked sand
> "garden". Which is hard to accomplish around my house, with the all
> of the din my wife makes clapping her hands, one at a time.
If we meet again remind me you show you the answer to that 'one hand
clapping' thing:-)
> >Well, that's pretty obvious, so I'll let it go...
> >Except a feeling that the 'many truths coexisting' bit really is
> >intended to read 'many conflicting truths coexisting'. Which is wrong by
> >definition. I just hate the 'post modern' crap. i'm just waiting 'til
> >tomorrow until we move on to 'post post modern'.
> ...I'm not sure when modern stopped, and when we became post modern.
> Must've been a milestone. Not even sure what post-modern is supposed
> to be. Must be one of those distinctions akin to the differences
> between Impressionist and Expressionist. The distinction eludes me.
I think 'post modern' is where things get 'de-constructed' instead of
'reduced to their working parts', 'dismantled' or simply 'analysed'. It
will be one of those phrases that will make people squirm in about ten
years time. A bit like if you go out wearing flared trousers and
platform shoes, or try to dance at your kids birthday party.
> >Tell that to the scientists searching to the Theory of Everything.
> >So, do you tend to the view that the underlying reality (if there is
> >such a thing) is not a unity?
> I won't bother talking to scientists...they are the clergy of their
> own religion, with its own exclusionary, "hidden arts" dynamics.
How about engineers?
> A unity? I tend to consider Midgarð in human terms...every person is
> different, and we all have a lot in common. To judge us individually
> alone, one would come to believe that life is chaos. To consider
> things only from the commonalities, people would be no more than ants.
> We are individuals with a great deal in common.
>
> Unity? Another way of levelling people, saying that no one is
> better...that nothing is better than anything else. My opinion.
I don't mean a unity 'across the board', but as a common origin of
everything.
> >Shit, more Zen. Have you been reading Forbidden Books, or catching
> >'Enlightenment'?
> ...no...and I don't meditate...my knees can't take the strain of
> sitting on a bamboo mat, and if anyone were to come along behind me
> and whack me with a cane rod, it'd take half an hour to unfold out of
> the lotus position to kick his sneaky ass.
Yes, but the students are normally 'asking for it'.
BTW, is there anything in the old traditions that would correspond to a
formal meditation practice?
> ...we just know some of these ideas because Zen has been so eloquent
> in expressing them. I think that they are more universal than all
> that...a commonality cross-culturally expressed by individuals.
Buddha would have said 'all senteint beings'.
Dirk
H4P1A3S1
>You mean, like science and reason? Right. Odin is Mohammed in disguise,
>or is this a 'truth' that conflicts with... er... truth?
My point exactly. :^)
Dirk Bruere
>...
> learn from eachother, but remain who we are.
> Considering this...and being wise enough to value that which is not
> your own...can we not be more respectful of "the other guy". We can
> acknowlege the differences, and let him get on with his life. In this
> light, we can be proud of our people and take nothing away from the
> humanity of others.
> This is a Folkish perspective on heathenism, and one in which racism
> is impossible.
I'm not sure about that. There comes a time, when we share the same
space, that 'live and let live' won't work because of conflicting and
exclusive ideas of 'how it should be done'.
For example, 'divine right of kings' won't sit happily with 'democracy'.
That's when (civil) wars get fought.
Dirk
H4P1A3S1
>...I'm not sure when modern stopped, and when we became post modern.
>Must've been a milestone.
More like a process, actually.
>Not even sure what post-modern is supposed
>to be. <snip>
>The distinction eludes me.
To perhaps clarify:
David Harvey of Oxford University defined postmodernism as "the situation in
which the world finds itself after the breakdown of the "Enlightenment
project," which lasted from the latter part of the 18th c. well into the
20th... The thinkers of the Enlightenment, Harvey said, "took it as axiomatic"
that there was only one possible answer to any question... But this presumed
that there existed a single correct mode of representation... an ideology of
progress: a belief in "linear progress, absolute truths, and rational planning
of ideal social orders."
"Over the past few centuries, various great belief systems... have flexed their
muscles in the world... And although each of these had their own inventory of
essential truths, none has been able to gain universal agreement that those
truths were all that true... Now, in the postmodern era, the very concept of
universality is, as the deconstructionists say, "put into question."... It
begins to look like we're all going to have to get used to a world of multiple
realities."
I'm beginning to wonder why no one has thought to write "Postmodernism: a
beginner's guide" since they write them for every other conceivable topic.
H4P1A3S1
>We, as a people, children of our culture, which is a product of our
>knowledge of life informed by our religion, have one take on life.
>
> Now, down the street, Mr. Ngombe, the Yoruba heathen, with his own
>tradition, shares some of our beliefs... <snip>...but differs both in detail
and in
>the wider view of things. He is a child of his tradition.
>
>Now, his tradition explains the world to him, ours to us. We can
>learn from eachother, but remain who we are.
>
>Considering this...and being wise enough to value that which is not
>your own...can we not be more respectful of "the other guy". <snip>
>
>This is a Folkish perspective on heathenism, and one in which racism
>is impossible.
It's also a very *ahem* postmodern take on the issue... :^)
H4P1A3S1
>I think 'post modern' is where things get 'de-constructed' instead of
>'reduced to their working parts',
You're confusing postmodernism with deconstructionism. Not the same thing at
all.
Dirk Bruere
>
> >From: Dirk Bruere
>
> >I think 'post modern' is where things get 'de-constructed' instead of
> >'reduced to their working parts',
>
> You're confusing postmodernism with deconstructionism. Not the same thing at
> all.
Probably. Perhaps you can tell me what's been re-hashed by
'intellectuals' for sale this week as the above.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> To perhaps clarify:
>
> David Harvey of Oxford University defined postmodernism as "the situation in
> which the world finds itself after the breakdown of the "Enlightenment
> project," which lasted from the latter part of the 18th c. well into the
> 20th... The thinkers of the Enlightenment, Harvey said, "took it as axiomatic"
> that there was only one possible answer to any question... But this presumed
> that there existed a single correct mode of representation... an ideology of
> progress: a belief in "linear progress, absolute truths, and rational planning
> of ideal social orders."
Ah...right. You mean the above has been discredited in US university
arts departments, while the rest of us (Europe, Asia and corporate US)
who are actually building tomorrow ignore them.
> "Over the past few centuries, various great belief systems... have flexed their
> muscles in the world... And although each of these had their own inventory of
> essential truths, none has been able to gain universal agreement that those
> truths were all that true... Now, in the postmodern era, the very concept of
> universality is, as the deconstructionists say, "put into question."... It
> begins to look like we're all going to have to get used to a world of multiple
> realities."
And one engineering solution, backed by the scientific method. I hear
that evolutionary psychology, sociobiology and hard physics and computer
science might put a doubt in the fashionable uncertainties. I suspect,
however, that the above (the very concept of universality is, as the
deconstructionists say, "put into question."...) stops just short of
support for 'folkish' points of view.
> I'm beginning to wonder why no one has thought to write "Postmodernism: a
> beginner's guide" since they write them for every other conceivable topic.
Because it gets outdated so fast. See reference to flared trousers.
Dirk
Ivar Wiljonsen
*LOL* I love those British sayings like "Hey mate quite looking at me
bird!" *LOL*
"Agitate with your goal in mind."
- K. Chernenko
"Your enemies may hate you, but they shall never win. For when you
hate your
enemies you thus destroy yourself.
You can never be on the highest
mountain until you have been in the
deepest valley in the world."
-Richard M. Nixon
"Never mock a guest or wandering man;
For never does one have so much virture;
that they lacks all fault." -The Havamal
H4P1A3S1
<gratutitous insults snipped>
Since you've descended to the level of name-calling rather than discussion, I
see no useful purpose in continuing to respond further to your posts on this
thread. Engaging in an adult difference of opinion does not, IMO, involve such
things. Whether your misinterpretations of what I have written are a
deliberate tactic or merely a lack of information I cannot readily ascertain.
Dirk Bruere
>
> >From: Dirk Bruere
>
> <gratutitous insults snipped>
>
> Since you've descended to the level of name-calling rather than discussion, I
> see no useful purpose in continuing to respond further to your posts on this
> thread. Engaging in an adult difference of opinion does not, IMO, involve such
> things. Whether your misinterpretations of what I have written are a
> deliberate tactic or merely a lack of information I cannot readily ascertain.
What are you talking about?
The "<gratutitous insults snipped>" are:
"
> You're confusing postmodernism with deconstructionism. Not the same thing at
> all.
Probably. Perhaps you can tell me what's been re-hashed by
'intellectuals' for sale this week as the above.
"
So, where's the insult? or is it that you have a personal hand in the
faddish shallow part of the US educational system I'm slagging off?
The question was a simple one, namely, that which now goes under the
name of 'postmodernism, deconstructionism etc' are very unlikely to be
new concepts. What were they called when they were first thought up?
(probably by the Ancient Greeks).
You ought to be a little less sensitive. If I'm going to insult you it
won't be ambiguous, it'll be by calling you wanker with a stick up his
arse.
Dirk
Ngilcach
should not be rejected or transcended for the sake of some greater end:>>
that you cannot focus on one or two of these aspects while foresaking the
remainder.
Those folk, like Hindus or Buddhists, who meditate for hours, or perform some
type of austerity are foresaking a vital aspect of their being.
I feel that part of our reason to be on earth is to LIVE, to EXPERIENCE, to BE.
However, I also feel that there is a purpose to our lives, an ultimate goal.
Because I feel reincarnation to be a manifestation of a greater force, I feel
that we - as part of that greater force - reincarnate. To this end I further
feel there is an ultimate goal. This does not mean I <<pine(ing) for some
ideal.>>, but that I Realize that I will eventually reach a state of
development where it will no longer be necessary for me to return to Midgard.
My faith on this matter rests on becoming an Ancestor/God. I feel that
eventually this is our ultimate goal.
Ingeborg wrote <<Matter and spirit are NOT necessarily opposed; they simply
coexist, and neither is inherently better or more real.>>
** As a family raised Pagan I was taught (amongst other things) what we refer
to as the 42 Sacred Things. Part of which jives with what you are saying
above:
"The Nine Worlds are made of essence and matter,
these are equitable to emptiness and space.
There is not one greater than the other;
essence/matter and emptiness/space are interchangeable. Within the Nine Worlds
all things have importance and function." Truth 3.
Ingeborg wrote <<Gods and other supernatural beings are distinct individuals.
None of them are perfect or unlimited in power..>>
** One of the reasons we never use the word 'god/s'. We employ instead
'Ancestor'. We see them as the progenitors, the creators. No better or worse
necessarily, just at it a lot longer then we have.
In Service ...
Yngona Tyrsvardh
freya...@my-dejanews.com
art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote:
> H4P1A3S1 wrote:
> >
> > > Dirk Bruere wrote:
> If I'm going to insult you it won't be ambiguous, it'll be by calling you
>wanker with a stick up his arse.
>
> Dirk
>
Those of us who actually know Morgan would find such an insult highly amusing.
Although I do think you were asking that the distinction between
post-modernism and deconstructionism be made, the manner in which you asked
does not lead me to believe that an answer would recieve anything other than
a hostile reception. (I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, or the
last.) Still, for the most part, I've enjoyed the debate between you and
Morgan. I have not chosen to participate because my knowledge of Modernism,
Post-Modernism, and whatever the contemporary period will be called, is
limited to the specific field of Art. (Yes, Not only are we not moderns, we
are no longer post-moderns. Thankfully, no one has yet coined a period term
using the word, contemporary, so we can still call ourselves that.) Morgan
is giving definitions from the field of History, and, for example, the period
labled Modernism by historians is much longer than the Art historical period
of the same name. In the same way, historians may still consider the current
time frame to be Post-modern, while the current art world considers
post-modernism to be over.
You may not like "post-modernist crap", but if you're going to argue about it
you're going to have to learn the terms that the historians, critics, writers
and those annoying intellectuals are using. If not, you'll be left out of
the debate. I don't like having to do it. There are a large number of
scholars who can't write, express themselves poorly, and use esoteric
language and vocabulary to hide the fact that they don't have anything to
contribute. Still, I have ot wade through all of it to find those people who
really do have something to say.
I hope the two of you will see fit to resume your debate.
freyaswolf
S. M. Hewitt
>>From: Dirk Bruere
>
>>I think 'post modern' is where things get 'de-constructed' instead of
>>'reduced to their working parts',
>
>You're confusing postmodernism with deconstructionism. Not the same thing at
>all.
>
>Respectfully,
>Morgan
...of course, Dirk, how could you be so thick? The textbook for
postmodernism costs $25, while that for deconstructionism costs
$37.50. Beyond that, the distinction is academic...in the most "ivory
tower" use of that word.
S. M. Hewitt
>>This is a Folkish perspective on heathenism, and one in which racism
>>is impossible.
>
>It's also a very *ahem* postmodern take on the issue... :^)
>
>Respectfully,
>Morgan
...yo, Dirk! I'm postmodern, and didn't even know it! I'm gonna
hafta get a t-shirt made!
-- Steve
Dirk Bruere
>
> > If I'm going to insult you it won't be ambiguous, it'll be by calling you
> >wanker with a stick up his arse.
> Those of us who actually know Morgan would find such an insult highly amusing.
Maybe he didn't see the 'If'.
> Although I do think you were asking that the distinction between
> post-modernism and deconstructionism be made, the manner in which you asked
> does not lead me to believe that an answer would recieve anything other than
> a hostile reception. (I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, or the
Well, if he said something I agreed with I can assure you the reception
would not be hostile. Still, this is really stylistic fallout from a
debate I was engaged in in alt.zen on the nature of reality. Over there
it is not only quite 'intellectual' but has aspects of 'Dharma Combat'
as well. Crudely, one is trying to not only clarify positions, insights,
terminology etc but to unbalance ones opponent through little digs at
the ego (having an ego is about the only sin over there). you get full
points if they start foaming at the mouth and 'losing it'. Seems I might
have got top score with morgan, except it doesn't count 'cos it wasn't
intended. Pity.
I must remember to tread more carefully amongst the delicate Northern
flowers and not stomp around like those brutish swaggering Eastern
zennites...
> last.) Still, for the most part, I've enjoyed the debate between you and
> Morgan. I have not chosen to participate because my knowledge of Modernism,
> Post-Modernism, and whatever the contemporary period will be called, is
My objections (bigoted and rational) lie in three areas. The first is
that I believe in the notion of 'progress', and that what's gone wrong
has to do with spiritual decay leading to a lack of goals (direction)
which makes progress seem impossible or irrelevent. That is, I subscribe
to the notion of progress.
Second, I see old philosophies dressed up and renamed in the academic
marketplace and resold to the ignorant public like they were new.
Third, what humanities academics think is (I believe) largely
irrelevent, While they are talking we, (scientists, engineers etc), are
doing. They've only got one more generation to whine on about 'the human
condition', because genetic engineering and AI implants etc will make
the ntion of 'human' pretty dubious.
> limited to the specific field of Art. (Yes, Not only are we not moderns, we
> are no longer post-moderns. Thankfully, no one has yet coined a period term
> using the word, contemporary, so we can still call ourselves that.) Morgan
Now art is something I have time for; I don't know much about it, but I
know what I like! Or rather, I know what I don't like. Artists I have
spoken to seem resistent to the idea that there can be such a thing as
good art that is totally undesirable. Like the science involved in
thermonuclear bombs is beautiful, but the world would be better off
without them.
> is giving definitions from the field of History, and, for example, the period
> labled Modernism by historians is much longer than the Art historical period
> of the same name. In the same way, historians may still consider the current
> time frame to be Post-modern, while the current art world considers
> post-modernism to be over.
My interest is post-human.
> You may not like "post-modernist crap", but if you're going to argue about it
> you're going to have to learn the terms that the historians, critics, writers
> and those annoying intellectuals are using. If not, you'll be left out of
I'm not sure it's worth joining in the debate in the first place.
> the debate. I don't like having to do it. There are a large number of
> scholars who can't write, express themselves poorly, and use esoteric
> language and vocabulary to hide the fact that they don't have anything to
> contribute. Still, I have ot wade through all of it to find those people who
> really do have something to say.
Something new to say. However, you are correct. One of the problems I
had in the az debate revolved around my definition of 'materialist'
which differed from the standard academic one.
Dirk
S. M. Hewitt
>To perhaps clarify:
>
>David Harvey of Oxford University defined postmodernism as (etc)
>
>Respectfully,
>Morgan
...well, I'm not one for droll academic takes on life. I do very much
appreciate your explanation of the term (the *first* I've ever read,
anywhere), but it all seems so much academic wheel-spinning to me.
Life is, so far as my experience has taught me, is a fairly holistic
affair, rather subjective, and has as many twists and turns as a bowl
of vermicelli. It actually doesn't lend itself to detailed
examination. Take Marx for example.
If "there is no one starting point" or "there is no hidden agenda
which we'll figger out if we furrow our brows enough" is postmodern,
then sign me up.
Dirk Bruere
>
> >>This is a Folkish perspective on heathenism, and one in which racism
> >>is impossible.
> >
> >It's also a very *ahem* postmodern take on the issue... :^)
> >
> ...yo, Dirk! I'm postmodern, and didn't even know it! I'm gonna
> hafta get a t-shirt made!
A postmodern zen T-shirt featuring a picture of one hand clapping,
tastefully deconstructed. One size fits all.
Dirk
S. M. Hewitt
wrote:
>> This is a Folkish perspective on heathenism, and one in which racism
>> is impossible.
>
>I'm not sure about that. There comes a time, when we share the same
>space, that 'live and let live' won't work because of conflicting and
>exclusive ideas of 'how it should be done'.
>
>Dirk
..oh, quite right. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the old saying
goes. I was speaking to the issue of respect for strangers, not
classing people different from ourselves as enemies or as competition
at the waterhole (unless, of course, they are).
But, you are quite right: when people begin rubbing elbows,
differences surface long before similarities. Among people who
superficially share similarities differences of accent, background and
dress are handy catalysts for bigotry.
The challenge is to be respectful and keep your distance...and to keep
your temper when distance cannot be maintained.
In a more and more crowded world, replete with people who wish to
ignore simple human attitudes, and to perfect the human animal, this
challenge will become more and more amusing to watch.
H4P1A3S1
>If "there is no one starting point" or "there is no hidden agenda
>which we'll figger out if we furrow our brows enough" is postmodern,
>then sign me up.
Consider yourself signed... :^)
I think the real gist of the matter is the fact that the ideas which are
expressed by the academic discussion of postmodernism are so much a part of our
daily lives that it's strange to take that step back away from them and examine
them from the outside. Sort of a "can't see the forest for the trees"
situation.
J.H.Peck
My so called sense of humor was set off by this one....
S. M. Hewitt wrote:
>My point:
>
> * The Multiverse has no "secret password".
Actually the Multiverse has quite a few secret passwords, mostly for
various superpowers and money. I'll be coming out with the latest cheat manual
sometime next spring, at $24.50 a copy. Reserve your's now! Here's a free sample:
For total control of the internet, type in this code DOGSISETAGLLIB and hit
<control>< alt><delete>.
Fun and Friğ,
Lyulf
--
anj...@gte.net | But Woe to those who break our sleep,
http://home1.gte.net/anjpeck/index.htm | And woe to those who Dare,
| To Rouse the Herd-bull from His Keep.
| Or the Wild-Boar from his lair!<R.Kipling>
Dirk Bruere
>
> Those folk, like Hindus or Buddhists, who meditate for hours, or perform some
> type of austerity are foresaking a vital aspect of their being.
Not at all. I practice my martial arts every day. I practice meditation
of various forms. Most days I wash in cold water. Sometimes I do what I
want, sometimes I exercise will and *not* do what I want. It gives me
insight and makes me strong and keeps me healthy.
> I feel that part of our reason to be on earth is to LIVE, to EXPERIENCE, to BE.
There are many ways of doing this, some mutually exclusive.
> However, I also feel that there is a purpose to our lives, an ultimate goal.
My purpose is to be good at being 'me'.
> Because I feel reincarnation to be a manifestation of a greater force, I feel
> that we - as part of that greater force - reincarnate. To this end I further
> feel there is an ultimate goal. This does not mean I <<pine(ing) for some
> ideal.>>, but that I Realize that I will eventually reach a state of
> development where it will no longer be necessary for me to return to Midgard.
> My faith on this matter rests on becoming an Ancestor/God. I feel that
> eventually this is our ultimate goal.
I don't think such opinions matter in the sense that they affect the
outcome. I believe we all have an inner guiding light that we can find
if we look deep enough, and following that to the best of our ability
and in good faith is all that's required. That's what the Nine Virtues
and other sets of rules attempt to encode.
Dirk
Ngilcach
hours, or perform
some type of austerity are foresaking a vital aspect of their being.>>
And Dirk Bruere wrote <<Not at all. I practice my martial arts every day. I
practice meditation
of various forms. Most days I wash in cold water. Sometimes I do what I want,
sometimes I exercise will and *not* do what I want. It gives me
insight and makes me strong and keeps me healthy.>>
** I am referring to 'austerity', not discipline. There is a difference.
What I was thinking of specifically when I wrote my original comment was those
Hindu austetics who stand on one leg for 5, 10, or 20 years. Or the Buddhists
who slowly starve themselves to death.
Dirk Bruere
>
> ** I am referring to 'austerity', not discipline. There is a difference.
Not in most peoples minds. One persons discipline is another's
austerity.
> What I was thinking of specifically when I wrote my original comment was those
> Hindu austetics who stand on one leg for 5, 10, or 20 years. Or the Buddhists
> who slowly starve themselves to death.
I have a low opinion of Hinduism, but as far as Buddhism goes, it extols
the 'Middle Way'. The Buddha knews riches and indulgence as a prince,
and your version of austerity when he was seeking Enlightenment. He
found that neither was conducive to his awakening.
Dirk
freya...@my-dejanews.com
art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote:
> freya...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Those of us who actually know Morgan would find such an insult highly
amusing.
>
> Maybe he didn't see the 'If'.
>
I'm fairly sure "he" did. It was, after all, the post previous to this one
that annoyed Morgan to the point of breaking the discussion off.
> Well, if he said something I agreed with I can assure you the reception
> would not be hostile. Still, this is really stylistic fallout from a
> debate I was engaged in in alt.zen on the nature of reality. Over there
> it is not only quite 'intellectual' but has aspects of 'Dharma Combat'
> as well. Crudely, one is trying to not only clarify positions, insights,
> terminology etc but to unbalance ones opponent through little digs at
> the ego (having an ego is about the only sin over there). you get full
> points if they start foaming at the mouth and 'losing it'. Seems I might
> have got top score with morgan, except it doesn't count 'cos it wasn't
> intended. Pity.
>
It also does not count because you're not on alt.zen. As far as I know,
having an ego is not a problem on alt.asatru. Some of the gods seem to have
quite large ones. But, then, they're gods.
>
> My objections (bigoted and rational) lie in three areas. The first is
> that I believe in the notion of 'progress', and that what's gone wrong
> has to do with spiritual decay leading to a lack of goals (direction)
> which makes progress seem impossible or irrelevent. That is, I subscribe
> to the notion of progress.
>
I take it that you think of progress as a positive thing, (You don't
actually state this.), at least with a healthy spirituality and good
direction. This could get you labled a modernist. But than, most engineers
and scientists view progress as positive. Hard to keep working in these
fields if you don't.
> Second, I see old philosophies dressed up and renamed in the academic
> marketplace and resold to the ignorant public like they were new.
>
Certainly, this happens. (Not just in academia.) The only real defense I
know to this is to educate people. Ignorance can be cured. It is far easier
to take an old idea and redress it than it is to do original thought. I have
seen people in art fairs do knock offs of a famous artist's work and sell
them to an ignorant public as original pieces. (Of the artist selling them,
not the original artist. That would be forgery.) While I do not approve the
actions of people who do things like this, I also think it is incumbant on an
idividual to educate himself so that such deceptions are less likely.
> Third, what humanities academics think is (I believe) largely
> irrelevent, While they are talking we, (scientists, engineers etc), are
> doing. They've only got one more generation to whine on about 'the human
> condition', because genetic engineering and AI implants etc will make
> the ntion of 'human' pretty dubious.
>
I think you're likely to find the term 'human' will move right along with
whatever we become by AI implants or genetic modification. Also, I do not
think that the basic concerns addressed by the humanities will be eliminated.
To simply do, without considering the results of your actions would not be
very wise. What was done, what we are doing and what we will do are worthy
of some thought from time to time. It is also a good idea to appreciate and
enjoy these things.
> Now art is something I have time for; I don't know much about it, but I
> know what I like! Or rather, I know what I don't like. Artists I have
> spoken to seem resistent to the idea that there can be such a thing as
> good art that is totally undesirable. Like the science involved in
> thermonuclear bombs is beautiful, but the world would be better off
> without them.
>
Most people are far more certain of what they don't like than what they
like where art is concerned. Andre Serrano did a very nice color photograph.
The reds and yellows are beautiful. It's of a crucifix in urine and is the
infamous "Piss Christ". Most Christians and espcially Republicans found this
undesirable. As a result of this, and the work of four other artists, there
are no longer any federal (NEA) grants given to any individual artists. Sort
of like your H-bomb analogy.
> I'm not sure it's worth joining in the debate in the first place.
>
It becomes a catch-22. You have to learn something about it to find out if
it's worthwhile. It's worthwhile to some, to others it's not.
> Something new to say. However, you are correct. One of the problems I
> had in the az debate revolved around my definition of 'materialist'
> which differed from the standard academic one.
>
Not everything that is worth saying is new. It could be new to me, or an
old idea presented in a way in which I had not previously considered.
Sometimes it is valuable be reminded.
Dirk Bruere
> I'm fairly sure "he" did. It was, after all, the post previous to this one
> that annoyed Morgan to the point of breaking the discussion off.
Too sensitive.
> > points if they start foaming at the mouth and 'losing it'. Seems I might
> > have got top score with morgan, except it doesn't count 'cos it wasn't
> > intended. Pity.
> It also does not count because you're not on alt.zen. As far as I know,
> having an ego is not a problem on alt.asatru. Some of the gods seem to have
> quite large ones. But, then, they're gods.
I would have assumed (if I knew nothing of the groups) that Asatru would
be filled with ruff'n'tuff barbarians and alt.zen with NewAge wimps and
sociology students.
> > My objections (bigoted and rational) lie in three areas. The first is
> > that I believe in the notion of 'progress', and that what's gone wrong
> > has to do with spiritual decay leading to a lack of goals (direction)
> > which makes progress seem impossible or irrelevent. That is, I subscribe
> > to the notion of progress.
> I take it that you think of progress as a positive thing, (You don't
> actually state this.), at least with a healthy spirituality and good
> direction. This could get you labled a modernist. But than, most engineers
> and scientists view progress as positive. Hard to keep working in these
> fields if you don't.
I think it's a good thing from a personal POV. I don't want to be what I
was, today is just a point of transition to a 'better' me. However,
there are quite distinctive markers for 'progress', certainly as I'd
define the term, in a social sense. More knowledge, better application
of knowledge, greater wisdom, greater ecological diversity, wider spread
of life, more power over/with Nature, greater personal freedom...
> seen people in art fairs do knock offs of a famous artist's work and sell
> them to an ignorant public as original pieces. (Of the artist selling them,
> not the original artist. That would be forgery.) While I do not approve the
> actions of people who do things like this, I also think it is incumbant on an
> idividual to educate himself so that such deceptions are less likely.
I love the idea of people who pay millions for a van Gough because it is
so 'beautiful' being totally pissed off if they even suspect it may be a
fake. Another bigoted view of mine is that works of art cannot be
forged, only currency can be. It is what it is. The rest is in the eye
of the beholder, and the bank.
> > Third, what humanities academics think is (I believe) largely
> > irrelevent, While they are talking we, (scientists, engineers etc), are
> > doing. They've only got one more generation to whine on about 'the human
> > condition', because genetic engineering and AI implants etc will make
> > the ntion of 'human' pretty dubious.
> I think you're likely to find the term 'human' will move right along with
> whatever we become by AI implants or genetic modification. Also, I do not
Not entirely. The term 'human' now means one thing, with minor
variations called 'races'. In the future the variations will become so
large that they will be classed as speciation.
> think that the basic concerns addressed by the humanities will be eliminated.
I think that more and more of what was theology and philosophy will be
absorbed by science. For example, Godel, Turing, the Relativity theories
and quantum mechanics have already bitten huge chunks from what was once
reserved territory. The fact that they point to very fundamental
limitations is a *scientific* result. As for ethics etc, evolutionary
psychology, sociobiology and related disciplines look like the way
forward.
> To simply do, without considering the results of your actions would not be
> very wise. What was done, what we are doing and what we will do are worthy
> of some thought from time to time. It is also a good idea to appreciate and
> enjoy these things.
Thinking is fine, but unless there is also doing a sterility and
decadence arises. They need each other.
> Most people are far more certain of what they don't like than what they
> like where art is concerned. Andre Serrano did a very nice color photograph.
> The reds and yellows are beautiful. It's of a crucifix in urine and is the
> infamous "Piss Christ". Most Christians and espcially Republicans found this
> undesirable. As a result of this, and the work of four other artists, there
> are no longer any federal (NEA) grants given to any individual artists. Sort
> of like your H-bomb analogy.
Well, there is a work of art, and there is the words surrounding it.
Generally, when I want to see the essence of something I try to look
beyond the words. Some art, and artists, I find quite destructive
spiritually. Ken Russell to name one. I quite enjoy his work, but I
still think the world would be better off without him.
> > I'm not sure it's worth joining in the debate in the first place.
> It becomes a catch-22. You have to learn something about it to find out if
> it's worthwhile. It's worthwhile to some, to others it's not.
It's worthwhile if there is a point of contact with the world, rather
than theories that build on each others foundations of sand. That's one
reason I don't go too deeply into crank physics or the Quabalah. They
may be beautiful structures, but in the end they don't 'do the
business'.
> Not everything that is worth saying is new. It could be new to me, or an
> old idea presented in a way in which I had not previously considered.
> Sometimes it is valuable be reminded.
Agreed.
I tend to argue quite aggressively as a testing technique, so forgive me
if I seem rude (ie basic). Morgan didn't hand around long enough for any
kind of apology.
Dirk
catherine yronwode
>
> Andross <and...@mail.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> [argument over validity and purpose of idols snipped]
>
> > yes! that is the goal of spirituality... to attain a buddha level
> > consciousness and communicate DIRECTLY with the deities... but that
> > is a skill almost imposible to develop without any sort of physical
> > aids!
A "buddha level consciousness" sounds like something from a role playing
game. IBuddha-hood is not usually defined as "communicating directly
with the deities." I mean, even MOSES did that! <g>
> I realize that many people reading this are followers of an Eastern
> faith; I respect that and am not trying to convert anyone.
Thank you! That's more polite than what some of THEM are doing!
> However, the idea that all religions MUST teach similar ideas in
> order to be spiritually valid, strikes me as rather dogmatic.
"Rather" dogmatic? Heheheh. Try "FUCKING GOD-AWFUL DOGMATIC WITH TENNIS
SHOES ON!"
> The regulars in this forum know that I am a Germanic pagan, and that
> many of my beliefs are incompatible with anything Eastern:
And, strange to tell, not all Eastern notions are mutually compatible,
either. Hence the many religious wars that have marred the history of
India.
Not to mention that Asian religion per se was not intended to be the
topic of this newsgroup.
> * No final, perfected state exists. Life in the ordinary world
> should not be rejected or transcended for the sake of some greater
> end: if the gods had wanted us to live that way, they would not have
> put this world here. Earning a good reputation and living honorably
> are more important than "god-consciousness" as an abstract state.
Thank you!
> * Matter and spirit are NOT necessarily opposed; they simply
> coexist, and neither is inherently better or more real.
Thank you!
> * Gods and other supernatural beings are distinct individuals. None
> of them are perfect or unlimited in power (although they are still
> greater than humans). Although people should develop a strong, close
> relationship with the spiritual world, "merging" with another being
> to the extent of losing identity is alien to Northern belief. Any
> power greater than the gods is as impersonal a force as electricity
> or gravity; merging with such a thing would be meaningless even if it
In Hindu religious philosophy, there are two schools, one of which holds
that the soul of an individual eventually becomes one with God; the
other school holds that it does not. As i noted before, wars have been
fought and people actually killed over this dispute.
> Does believing any of those things make me "un-spiritual"? I should
> hope not...I've had deep spiritual experiences that didn't contradict
> the ideas above, and still have a very close relationship with a god
> who would be very offended if I called him an aspect of anybody else!
> <g>
Don;t let Our Li'l Buddy scare you into thinking that he has the
exclusive handle on Eastern Religion (TM). As my old farmer friend
Virgil Eschrisch used to say, "He's just a popcorn fart in Hell."
> Nor do I see a belief in multiple, individual gods as incompatible
> with a belief in scientific law. All gods exist; but they have to
> run the universe by a set of fixed rules, no matter how a culture
> describes their activity in symbolic terms.
This is an interesting idea, and i like it as well as many others.
Thanks for sticking around. Don't let the bozos get you down.
catherine yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
Sacred Sex: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Freemasonry for Women: http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Comics Warehouse: http://www.luckymojo.com/comicswarehouse.html
check out news:alt.lucky.w for discussions on folk magic and luck
freya...@my-dejanews.com
art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote:
> I would have assumed (if I knew nothing of the groups) that Asatru would
> be filled with ruff'n'tuff barbarians and alt.zen with NewAge wimps and
> sociology students.
>
Interesting stereotyping. It would be interesting to see who actually make
up the two groups. There might be some surprises.
> I think it's a good thing from a personal POV. I don't want to be what I
> was, today is just a point of transition to a 'better' me. However,
> there are quite distinctive markers for 'progress', certainly as I'd
> define the term, in a social sense. More knowledge, better application
> of knowledge, greater wisdom, greater ecological diversity, wider spread
> of life, more power over/with Nature, greater personal freedom...
>
I agree with most of the goals you cite here. Balancing it all will be
quite the trick.
> I love the idea of people who pay millions for a van Gough because it is
> so 'beautiful' being totally pissed off if they even suspect it may be a
> fake. Another bigoted view of mine is that works of art cannot be
> forged, only currency can be. It is what it is. The rest is in the eye
> of the beholder, and the bank.
>
People who pay millions for a van Gough are usually not interest in the
painting as a work of art. (I think this is your point.) Our society being
mercantile likes to assign monetary value to things. Copies good enough so
that only true experts can tell the difference lessen the value of the
original and so if a skillful craftsman makes a copy and passes it off as an
original they, and is caught, they are arrested for forgery. Not every
society takes the same view. In China, where copying great works of past
masters is considered part your training as an artist, the attitude is
somewhat different. If you as the viewer can not tell the difference between
the copy and an origianl than your appreciation of the work will be the same
and no harm is done by selling you a copy. If you know enough to tell the
difference you won't by the copy anyway. This attitude toward intellectual
property has caused them some problems with the west. Museums sometimes pay
millions for a work, but if you look closely the motivation is usually
monitary. They think (rightly) that having such a famous work will bring
them more patrons and visitors. More money.
> Not entirely. The term 'human' now means one thing, with minor
> variations called 'races'. In the future the variations will become so
> large that they will be classed as speciation.
>
When me modify our genes sufficiently that we can no longer interbreed with
the current version of homo sapiens there will be a new species. This is I
think the biological point at which a new species is delared, but biology
class was over twenty years ago. Maybe the definition of species will change
too.
> I think that more and more of what was theology and philosophy will be
> absorbed by science. For example, Godel, Turing, the Relativity theories
> and quantum mechanics have already bitten huge chunks from what was once
> reserved territory. The fact that they point to very fundamental
> limitations is a *scientific* result. As for ethics etc, evolutionary
> psychology, sociobiology and related disciplines look like the way
> forward.
>
The process you describe is not one-sided. As science has absorbed parts
of philosophy other areas have expanded. Ethics will probably remain in the
philosphy department, and, for all the proved equivilence between mathematics
and logic, logic remains there as well. When the system gets sufficiently
unweildy we'll get around to changing it. I don't see much change coming in
the arts though. We keep seeing new tech applied to the arts, but the
central issues of art making and viewing are the same as they've allways
been. Of course, there are plenty of people who think we don't belong in the
university system at all. Changing ourselves to the point we no longer need
art? I'm not sure how I would relate to such a being. At that point I would
have to agree about no longer being human.
> Thinking is fine, but unless there is also doing a sterility and
> decadence arises. They need each other.
>
Well, yes, but contrary to popular belief artists are doers. It's just
that a large number of people don't think we do anything useful. Besides,
every once in a while those who just sit and think do come up with a good
idea. It pays to be a doer who listens when this happens.
> Well, there is a work of art, and there is the words surrounding it.
Sometimes the words surrounding it obscure it to the point it becomes
difficult to see it as a work of art.
> It's worthwhile if there is a point of contact with the world, rather
> than theories that build on each others foundations of sand. That's one
> reason I don't go too deeply into crank physics or the Quabalah. They
> may be beautiful structures, but in the end they don't 'do the
> business'.
>
You're telling this to some one who once called the Quabalah intellectual
masturbation.
> I tend to argue quite aggressively as a testing technique, so forgive me
> if I seem rude (ie basic). Morgan didn't hand around long enough for any
> kind of apology.
>
I've worked some twenty-two years on construction sites, before deciding to
go back into art. You have not begun to reach the level of shear crudeness
that I've had directed at me. (I would appreciate it if you didn't think of
this as a challenge to try.) I also appreciate an insult that is cleverly
constructed. My problem with most insults and flames is that they are
unimaginative. Also, as Morgan will read this, she will see your last
statement. I don't think she'll consider it an apology though. But, only
Morgan knows for sure.
freyaswolf
> Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> > there are quite distinctive markers for 'progress', certainly as I'd
> > define the term, in a social sense. More knowledge, better application
> > of knowledge, greater wisdom, greater ecological diversity, wider spread
> > of life, more power over/with Nature, greater personal freedom...
> I agree with most of the goals you cite here. Balancing it all will be
> quite the trick.
When we are spread wide enough Nature does the balancing.
> society takes the same view. In China, where copying great works of past
> masters is considered part your training as an artist, the attitude is
> somewhat different. If you as the viewer can not tell the difference between
> the copy and an origianl than your appreciation of the work will be the same
I can certainly appreciate Bill Gates' effort that way.
> > Not entirely. The term 'human' now means one thing, with minor
> > variations called 'races'. In the future the variations will become so
> > large that they will be classed as speciation.
> When me modify our genes sufficiently that we can no longer interbreed with
> the current version of homo sapiens there will be a new species. This is I
> think the biological point at which a new species is delared, but biology
> class was over twenty years ago. Maybe the definition of species will change
> too.
I think that within 100 yrs there will be non interbreeding species of
humanity. I suspect that the genetic variation required between (say)
full aquatic adaptation versus zero-g/high vacuum adaptation will be too
great.
> > I think that more and more of what was theology and philosophy will be
> > absorbed by science. For example, Godel, Turing, the Relativity theories
> > and quantum mechanics have already bitten huge chunks from what was once
> > reserved territory. The fact that they point to very fundamental
> > limitations is a *scientific* result. As for ethics etc, evolutionary
> > psychology, sociobiology and related disciplines look like the way
> > forward.
> The process you describe is not one-sided. As science has absorbed parts
> of philosophy other areas have expanded. Ethics will probably remain in the
> philosphy department, and, for all the proved equivilence between mathematics
The difference seems to be that in the past nobody really expected great
philosophical questions to be answered decisively, least of all by
experiment. That's progress.
> university system at all. Changing ourselves to the point we no longer need
> art? I'm not sure how I would relate to such a being. At that point I would
> have to agree about no longer being human.
It depends what you mean by art. It could be said that art is the
technology of the emotional/spiritual.
> > Thinking is fine, but unless there is also doing a sterility and
> > decadence arises. They need each other.
> Well, yes, but contrary to popular belief artists are doers. It's just
I agree, but the context was frothy humanities depts recycling ideas and
feeding on each other's irrelevencies.
> > Well, there is a work of art, and there is the words surrounding it.
>
> Sometimes the words surrounding it obscure it to the point it becomes
> difficult to see it as a work of art.
Then it's a work of political art.
> > reason I don't go too deeply into crank physics or the Quabalah. They
> > may be beautiful structures, but in the end they don't 'do the
> > business'.
> You're telling this to some one who once called the Quabalah intellectual
> masturbation.
I have other objections to such 'magickal' techniques. Primarily, they
are crutches that the practitioners invest so much effort in that they
never get to walk unaided.
> > I tend to argue quite aggressively as a testing technique, so forgive me
> > if I seem rude (ie basic). Morgan didn't hand around long enough for any
> > kind of apology.
> I've worked some twenty-two years on construction sites, before deciding to
> go back into art. You have not begun to reach the level of shear crudeness
> that I've had directed at me. (I would appreciate it if you didn't think of
> this as a challenge to try.) I also appreciate an insult that is cleverly
Crudeness has it's place, but a real insult should have enough truth in
it to hurt.
Meanwhile, sarcasm can fill the gap:-) <- look! a smiley to show I
didn't really mean it.
> constructed. My problem with most insults and flames is that they are
> unimaginative. Also, as Morgan will read this, she will see your last
> statement. I don't think she'll consider it an apology though. But, only
> Morgan knows for sure.
Ah... 'SHE'. All the while it was me thinking 'pretentious alpha male'.
So, is she good looking enough to make it worthwhile apologising, or is
she too ugly to bother?
Dirk
freya...@my-dejanews.com
art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote:
> When we are spread wide enough Nature does the balancing.
>
When nature does the balancing there is no such thing as mercy. That
doesn't especially bother me, but it would bother some.
>
> I think that within 100 yrs there will be non interbreeding species of
> humanity. I suspect that the genetic variation required between (say)
> full aquatic adaptation versus zero-g/high vacuum adaptation will be too
> great.
>
I don't think it would be a good idea for the two adaptations you mention
to be able to breed with the "old stock" as the offspring would not be well
adapted for either purpose.
> It depends what you mean by art. It could be said that art is the
> technology of the emotional/spiritual.
>
As far as I know no one has ever given an absolute definitive answer to the
question 'What is Art?'. Every time somebody comes up with one, some artist
does a piece that doesn't fit the definition. This has led some art theorists
to define art as whatever the art world says it is. Than they all run around
trying to define 'art world'.
> Crudeness has it's place, but a real insult should have enough truth in
> it to hurt.
> Meanwhile, sarcasm can fill the gap:-) <- look! a smiley to show I
> didn't really mean it.
>
Which means you have to learn enough about the person you're insulting to
put the sting in the barb. Otherwise a real dig is a product of chance.
Sarcasm, irony and satire can be difficult to pull off in print. It seems
that some one allways takes you literally.
> Ah... 'SHE'. All the while it was me thinking 'pretentious alpha male'.
> So, is she good looking enough to make it worthwhile apologising, or is
> she too ugly to bother?
>
Yes, 'SHE'. Sorry about the game of, 'drop the hint and see if he catches
on' in some of the previous posts. It was amusing for a while but our
conversation seems to be winding down. I'm not so sure it would be a good
idea for me to describe Morgan in an open post. I don't have her permisssion
to do so anyway. In answer to your question though, it would be worth
apologizing. That said, if you think you've done something you need to
apologize for, what does her appearance matter?
freyaswolf
Dirk Bruere
>
> > When we are spread wide enough Nature does the balancing.
> When nature does the balancing there is no such thing as mercy. That
> doesn't especially bother me, but it would bother some.
What is mercy? The withholding of a just punishment because of a change
of heart of the offender? In that case, Nature is not merciful, but
OTOH, cannot be anything but just. One might say that the nature of
reality is perfect a justice that cannot be evaded, but that sounds a
bit too much like what many people think of as karma.
> As far as I know no one has ever given an absolute definitive answer to the
> question 'What is Art?'. Every time somebody comes up with one, some artist
Has anyone answered the 'why?'
> > Crudeness has it's place, but a real insult should have enough truth in
> > it to hurt.
> > Meanwhile, sarcasm can fill the gap:-) <- look! a smiley to show I
> > didn't really mean it.
> Which means you have to learn enough about the person you're insulting to
> put the sting in the barb. Otherwise a real dig is a product of chance.
If one is oversensitive, then yes, chance can do it.
> Sarcasm, irony and satire can be difficult to pull off in print. It seems
> that some one allways takes you literally.
True.
> > Ah... 'SHE'. All the while it was me thinking 'pretentious alpha male'.
> > So, is she good looking enough to make it worthwhile apologising, or is
> > she too ugly to bother?
> Yes, 'SHE'. Sorry about the game of, 'drop the hint and see if he catches
> on' in some of the previous posts. It was amusing for a while but our
I never caught on, so no need to apologise.
> conversation seems to be winding down. I'm not so sure it would be a good
> idea for me to describe Morgan in an open post. I don't have her permisssion
I didn't expect you to, and I was just being sarcastic. I hope you
didn't take it literally?
> to do so anyway. In answer to your question though, it would be worth
> apologizing. That said, if you think you've done something you need to
> apologize for, what does her appearance matter?
Her appearance matters not at all, and I have done nothing to apologise
for.
Still, I've found with women that an unwaranted (blank cheque) apology
goes down well occasionally.
Dirk
freya...@my-dejanews.com
art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote:
> freya...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> What is mercy? The withholding of a just punishment because of a change
> of heart of the offender? In that case, Nature is not merciful, but
> OTOH, cannot be anything but just. One might say that the nature of
> reality is perfect a justice that cannot be evaded, but that sounds a
> bit too much like what many people think of as karma.
>
My last post is a bit misleading. I don't think terms such as mercy or
justice apply to nature. That's one of the things that annoy me about shows
like 'Angry Planet'. It imputes human emotions and motivations onto something
that doesn't have them.
> Has anyone answered the 'why?'
>
Not that I know of.
> I didn't expect you to, and I was just being sarcastic. I hope you
> didn't take it literally?
>
I often deal with sarcasm by 'playing it straight'.
> Still, I've found with women that an unwaranted (blank cheque) apology
> goes down well occasionally.
>
It would work even better if you didn't let them know you thought the
apology unwarranted.
freyaswolf
Dirk Bruere
> justice apply to nature. That's one of the things that annoy me about shows
> like 'Angry Planet'. It imputes human emotions and motivations onto something
> that doesn't have them.
I disagree on this point. There is a direct continuity between the laws
of physics, us, and our moralities; perhaps even an inevitability.
> > I didn't expect you to, and I was just being sarcastic. I hope you
> > didn't take it literally?
> I often deal with sarcasm by 'playing it straight'.
Probably safest in this cross cultural forum.
> > Still, I've found with women that an unwaranted (blank cheque) apology
> > goes down well occasionally.
> It would work even better if you didn't let them know you thought the
> apology unwarranted.
Well, since I am not issuing an apology on the antisexism grounds that
if I wouldn't do it for a man, I won't do it for Morgan, I feel fairly
safe in being honest.
Dirk
freya...@my-dejanews.com
art...@kbnet.co.uk wrote:
> > My last post is a bit misleading. I don't think terms such as mercy or
> > justice apply to nature. That's one of the things that annoy me about shows
> > like 'Angry Planet'. It imputes human emotions and motivations onto
something
> > that doesn't have them.
>
> I disagree on this point. There is a direct continuity between the laws
> of physics, us, and our moralities; perhaps even an inevitability.
>
This looks like something that could blow up into a long discussion where,
in the end, we would simply agree to disagree. I suggest we shortcut the
process, note our disagreement, and move on. (I have other
responsibilities.)
> Well, since I am not issuing an apology on the antisexism grounds that
> if I wouldn't do it for a man, I won't do it for Morgan, I feel fairly
> safe in being honest.
>
That would be consistant.
freyaswolf