Christian apology by a non-Christian

[Felasco]

And believe me, if you are upset with a few ironical and 'insulting' comments which are benign really, you would be decimated if you were to allow me to really tell you what I think. I do indeed believe that that IS the route you should take. In relation to me and in all your friendships. It is the harder road.

But it is a road that Gustav will not be able to handle, as you've already demonstrated. So why not kick your own pansy ass, and get back on a topic you can handle?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

At this point it becomes important to distinguish between human interpretations of reality, and reality itself. Obviously, human interpretations of anything are subject to all kinds of human weakness, limitations, failings etc and thus should be suspect.

This is where your 'mistake' lies, though you don't see it as such. I see your recurrence to this notion of 'reality itself' as a trick, a trick perpetrated against yourself basically. First, you would enter squarely into the basic problem you decry with your first exposition of 'the nature of reality'. Second, you minimize and 'deny' the means through which we organize perception in this world. You present a scene that appears 'logical' to the imagination and yet reduces itself to the absurd. Three, you can't 'do' what it is your propose so your proposition links to a control tactic through which you subvert conversation and the possibility of arriving at definitions. Without understanding the ramifications you therefor involve yourself in a 'destructive' process of undermining sensible and constructive work. To base your augment on the (true) fact that humans must interpret, are weak, have limitations, do fail, is a suspect maneouvre, yet it is the basic and core maneouvre in your entire thesis.

Your philosophy, or your religious modality, is made to sound 'natural' and self-evident. You also present it as some sort of 'solution'.

[Felasco]

First, you would enter squarely into the basic problem you decry with your first exposition of 'the nature of reality'.

Perhaps I have not explained enough times that I value the ability of analysis and philosophy to challenge the role of analysis and philosophy in what is sometimes called the religious inquiry.

Second, you minimize and 'deny' the means through which we organize perception in this world.

Please write the phrase "religious inquiry" on the blackboard 100 times, until you actually get that I am attempting to address the topic of this thread.

Three, you can't 'do' what it is your propose

You have not the slightest clue what I can and can not do.

so your proposition links to a control tactic through which you subvert conversation and the possibility of arriving at definitions.

How in the world can you label my endless barrage of posts as "subverting the conversation"???? What I'm subverting is Gustav's favorite theories.

Without understanding the ramifications you therefor involve yourself in a 'destructive' process of undermining sensible and constructive work.

You label doing the same thing over and over and over for centuries, expecting different results, as "sensible and constructive".

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Perhaps I have not explained enough times that I value the ability of analysis and philosophy to challenge the role of analysis and philosophy in what is sometimes called the religious inquiry.

You have indeed said this, and it seems you will likely continue to say it until Kingdom Come, and so what I suggest that you do is to write about what comes from that process, and to represent and explain its value. I think that you attempt to do that, for example here. But, and if, you are making a case for your philosophy or inquiry, I am not moved to accept it nor convinced by your reasonings. I have made an effort to explain why. It also stands to reason that you cannot 'use a nail to drive out a nail' because the nail would only replace the nail. (So to speak). Is it possible that what you really mean is some other mode entirely? Something perhaps like 'surrender of mind', or samadhi, or some other state that one could 'experience'? It certainly has been proposed, say by Patanjali and those of the Buddhist school.

The topic of this thread has to do with ways of either apologizing or non-apologizing for Christianity. I think that I do understand that, for you, you understand or conceive of a way or means to approach or 'experience' some level of knowledge, being or understanding that, I guess you might say it like this, is part-and-parcel of the 'real world'. I have said, and say again, that I consider this a suspect proposition. And I have given various, not insubstantial, reasons.

When I say 'You can't do what you propose' I do not mean it quite as you take it. I means that it 'reduces to the absurd' most especially in communication that takes place solely in a word medium. At the same time, I confess, I am not drawn to or convinced by the claims of yogic or Buddhist practitioners. I think that for pure value and usefulness, theology trumps mysticism.

How in the world can you label my endless barrage of posts as "subverting the conversation"? What I'm subverting is Gustav's favorite theories.

You misunderstand. By 'subvert' I mean that you seek to channel it toward a false-goal, and one that cannot in fact be spoken about. It can only be known, I suppose, in silence. Also, you do not seem to listen to some of the specific points that are brought up *against* your cherished position.

You label doing the same thing over and over and over for centuries, expecting different results, as "sensible and constructive".

The problem here, the fallacy if you will permit me to say, is in couching your critique as-against something done 'for centuries and centuries'. You have pre-determined, and assume that others accept, your a priori. But that a priori is not of concern to me. You propose a very large, indeed the largest possible 'solution', and yet all you can do is indicate toward 'it'.

I fully capture WHAT you are saying (as for example in the post linked to above) and all I can tell you is that: I am not convinced. And I feel that very strong arguments can be brought up 'against it'.

[Felasco]

I think that for pure value and usefulness, theology trumps mysticism.

The religious inquiry, whether Christian or otherwise, is about the psychic hunger of human beings. The value and usefulness of that inquiry comes in satisfying that hunger.

A hungry person wants food, not talk of food.

A tired person wants to sleep, not analyze sleeping.

A horny person wants sex, not a book about sex.

The spiritual need is no different than these other human needs. The direct, practical, sensible person wishes to satisfy the need.

The problem with trying to meet the need with talk is that the talk is made of the very thing which creates the need.

You will spend decades weaving an intricate complex sophisticated impressive highly articulate well educated "new and improved" theology, and in the end you will discover that all that intelligence, effort, and resolve would have been better invested in diligently doing nothing at all.

Christianity is about surrender for a reason. Surrender your ideas to the authority of the Church they said. Surrender your heart to your neighbor they said. Surrender your soul to God they said. Your heart, your mind, your soul, surrender it all they said.

It's not a process of addition, but of subtraction.

Die to be reborn they said.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The religious inquiry, whether Christian or otherwise, is about the psychic hunger of human beings. The value and usefulness of that inquiry comes in satisfying that hunger.

Note your presuppositions, which you take as axioms. I wish to present to you the strong possibility that your axiom, or axioms (there are a number of them), are not precisely correct. Therefor, you start off on the wrong foot and, naturally and repeatedly, you stumble.

'Psychic hunger', though this sounds rather 'romantic' (influenced specifically by the Romantic movement), may indeed be part-and-parcel of the longing of humans. I could not deny it. But it is NOT, and by no means, solely the principal concern of Christianity, nor necessarily of any other religion, and they are by no means all the same, as you mistakenly imply---or rather state directly.

In my various years of reading about Christianity, from all sorts of perspectives, I would say that Christianity as a path and a way or life, as a solution, as a technology even, is much more about other things; other things that can be named and which I have spent time naming.

I don't have the sense that you will be able to take in this 'opposition' to your position. Still, it is important to do so for a number of reasons. Much of that I have already explained. At length!

The Book of James.

Christian Ethics.

[Harry Baird]

Hello, Felasco,

We are journeying from the superficial level, intellectual abstractions, to a deeper level, personal psychology. The idea that forums such as this are about the intellectual abstractions is the cover story, while our personal situations and motivations etc are the real story. We are journeying past the press releases of our public relations department, to a look at the real people behind the curtain.

Well, I would say that it is true *both* that (these) forums are about "intellectual abstractions" and that they are about "personal psychology", but I would not call "intellectual abstractions" superficial. In any case, I doubt that there are any of us posting here who are focussed exclusively on either one or the other. I am pretty sure that both elements play their part in the motivations of most if not all posters to this forum - and even if they don't initially, they will, due to human (social) nature, do so at some point; we can't help but notice personal things about one another when we engage consistently, even if only in writing online.

One reason I was (am) able to talk about "the real person [Gustav] behind the curtain", and why he is capable of doing the same about me, is that we have formed a "real" relationship outside of this forum. Nevertheless, had we not formed that relationship, we would have continued to develop our "intellectual abstractions", independently of "personal psychology", and that is a good thing. We all have our conceptual focusses, they are generally (sure, not always) useful to us, and we all develop them regardless of social influence. Certainly, you do, with your belief in the divisiveness of thought. Is this (the "divisiveness" of thought) such a bad thing though? You seem to think that it is. I don't agree.

I think that your notion of the "divisiveness" of thought is in itself "divisive", if I might put it like that. It divides us into those who accept rationality (divisive thought), and those who do not - those who believe entirely in mystical/thoughtless experience. But what about when decisions need to be made? There is no way to make a decision without "dividing" thought - into that which is desirable as an outcome and that which is undesirable. What are you to do here? Abstain from a decision at all? But abstinence is in itself a decision. I get that you are not arguing explicitly that *all* thought be avoided, but, well, sometimes it seems that you argue as much implicitly. You criticise thought so much that it almost seems as if you *do* want to be rid of it altogether. This seems to me to be a problem with your line of ... well, thinking!

And, yes, we do experience a distinction between public and private, and I have certainly defended my privacy. You suggest that this distinction is "really not personal, but has more to do with the nature of human beings". This, I would suggest, is not quite true - sure, the distinction itself is not personal, but the contents of the distinction (on the private side at least) - its referents, and where the line is drawn - very much are.

Gustav,

Esteemed Harry. I am not quite sure that you understand 'friendship'. Certainly we are friends, to the degree that friendship in possible through the Internet medium. Yet no matter how it is conceived I think it might help you to understand that, according to my sense of duty, I am 'acting like a friend'. True, it is not to your liking and this is understandable. But the bottom line for me is that unless you yourself 'self-reveal' and put it all out on the table, I cannot myself do that. But without that done I have no means to speak with you. And because I cannot speak to you I cannot really tell you what I think. And believe me, if you are upset with a few ironical and 'insulting' comments which are benign really, you would be decimated if you were to allow me to really tell you what I think. I do indeed believe that that IS the route you should take. In relation to me and in all your friendships. It is the harder road.

As I wrote in that post you asked me to delete: you're not being at all fair. I *do* "self-reveal" to my friends privately, and have done so very much to you. I don't see how you could argue otherwise, since you know exactly what you are asking me to reveal publicly, but this is the point: you are asking me to air my private problems publicly, and that's not at all an appropriate or reasonable suggestion, and certainly not one that I am going to take up. And re my being "decimated" by you speaking your mind honestly: have I *ever* expressed a desire for you to hide the truth from me? Again, you're not being fair: I *expect* honesty from my friends, just not in the form of mockery, as I've also expressed to you.

Just so you know: I asked you to remove a post because (I am somewhat embarrassed to say this) I had the impression you wrote it when drunk.

I am very sure that the only reason you had that "impression" is because I stated as much explicitly at the end of my post. I very much doubt you would have picked up on it otherwise, because it was a perfectly reasonable post, as confirmed (as I mentioned in my previous post) by a mutual friend (Eliz).

I hardly think that alcohol is leading me down a path of madness and imprisonment. Caffeine, maybe (sleeplessness and chemically-induced anxiety are not good for the psycho-spiritually unstable such as myself), but not alcohol. As for death, I suppose that damage to my liver is a potential problem, sure. I certainly have the genes for alcoholism, but I'm not so far down that path that I would classify myself as one. These days, I never drink so much that I lose my senses, memory, or ability to communicate coherently. Typical alcoholics drink so much that they experience blackouts, and destroy their relationships. If anything, alcohol improves my ability to relate to people - in the amounts I drink, of course: much more and I start talking nonsense.

But just to be clear: I totally respect your desire to restrict personal contact with me whilst I am drinking; it seems to me to be a principled and well-intentioned move. Of course I am saddened to lose that contact, and don't think it's really necessary (I really don't lose control when I drink in the amounts I do these days, and I doubt that you or anyone else on this forum would have even known I'd been drinking unless I'd revealed it), but yes, I certainly respect your right to make that decision, and the legitimacy (from your perspective) of it.

I must also confess that at some level, perhaps it should be defined as 'an abstract level', I agree with the Aristotelean notion of the 'natural slave'.

That figures. It's the "conservative" in you, the part that sees hierarchies as both inevitable and desirable a la Richard Weaver. I have a much more socialist outlook. I suppose my views are driven by the notion of free will and freedom in general. Even if one person is less gifted than another, I don't think that the former ought to be forced into subservience. I think people generally recognise when others have such greater gifts that they deserve leadership positions, and, if they don't recognise as much, then it probably means that the potential leader is not qualified to lead anyway - I don't think one can legitimately lead without the will and consent of those being led.

I cannot at this time reveal to you, because I am in a process of defining it, what exactly I value and devalue. As I say my ideas are constantly in processes of evolution. I do understand the Greek Modality as being uniquely powerful and 'good', and I also do understand that 'Christianity' (or Greco-Christianity) is uniquely powerful in the world of definitions, and that Western Culture has uncovered unique and distinct avenues that have enabled everything that we see around us to come into existence.

Without your knowing why you have this understanding (as you seem to be admitting here is the case), that understanding is something like, as our friends on "the other forum" would say, a "henid". It is a vague and somewhat undeveloped sense that you have, and, lacking any substantiation for it, you cannot really be sure that your sense is accurate. This is a pretty big problem with your whole approach in this thread: to throw out a whole bunch of opinion without any real backing. It is possibly why several others have chosen to stop participating: because you refuse to justify your opinions in any evidential way.

In the so-called Traditionalist School we are descending into an Age of Darkness and Obscurity. They do not see technological progress as 'good' but rather the tools by which enslavement will take shape. Sure looks to be what is happening from where I sit.

Synchronously, I re-watched "The Matrix" last night. It certainly bears repeat watches. There are some problems with the coherence of some of the ideas in it, but it's generally a pretty brilliant movie, and certainly speaks to this issue of "enslavement by technology", and even of "traitors to the fight for freedom from technology". In any case, it's interesting to see you write of technological progress as not being good, if only by referring to it as someone else's idea, because I had understood that part of the value you placed on Western culture was due to its technological prowess.

Masculine self-definition, you reckon, eh? And yet you can't even define *why* you value what you value...

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

It is not, at least I don't think, that I am 'uncertain' what I value, and I do not think I am dealing with something quite as vague as a 'henid':

• "An unclarified, sub-conscious 'feeling'. A vague, unformed, foggy or confused idea. A disorganized, undifferentiated thought. A proto-thought."
  
  Otto Weininger's definition: "A common example from what has happened to all of us may serve to illustrate what a henid is. I may have a definite wish to say something particular, and then something distracts me, and the 'it' I wanted to say or think has gone. Later on, by some process of association, the 'it' is quite suddenly reproduced, and I know at once that it was what was on my tongue, but, so to speak, in a more perfect stage of development."

I do appreciate the attempt to cruelly inflict almost unimagined psycho-existential pain on me though…

I think that when we speak of Western Modes or The Western Canon or the 'Mediterranean Self' we are in an ultimate sense speaking about literacy. At a core level, as far as I can determine, it is THAT that stands in the balance. And literacy extends out into all fields: jurisprudence, art and poetry, the novel, scripture, liturgy, architecture, civic organization, and so much more.

But 'that' means much more than we normally associate with that word, as if it meant only knowing an alphabet and being able to write. The reason, perhaps, that I cannot spell it all out is that 'it' is simply too large to contain. It is like attempting to answer the question: What is it that makes us us? Is it because of the Bible? Or Plato? Or Aristotle? Or Greco-Christianity? Is it because of Roman culture and societal organization? Is it because of what some men did within the monasteries of Europe? Or is it because of the Pagan means and methods? Or is it possible (it is a compelling idea) that 'we' actually come on the scene and in a very real sense have been created by Shakespeare? Ni Marx, Ni Jesus, Mais Shakespeare! Or is it that 'we' stumbled into scientific method and with that transformed the world in unreal ways? What aspect of a being are we to value? What avenue of being are we to pursue? The issue, in truth, is huge. It requires literate interlocutors!

What you ask of me is to open your mind to material and possibilities that could only, in your case, be pointed to in a vague sense, because your mind is obscure. You can only receive an idea if there is something there to which it resonates. You want me to make a case that you will read on your computer screen and be convinced or not. What is required therefor is a successful commercial. A 30-minute infomercial!

Really the best I could conceive to do was to present to you an excellent source. You really should take me up on it. You won't regret it.

[Harry Baird]

It is not, at least I don't think, that I am 'uncertain' what I value

But then:

What aspect of a being are we to value?

That question, and indeed, the whole list of them that you provided, sure looks like uncertainty to me.

In any case, it wasn't my contention that you are uncertain *what* you value, but *why* you value it.

If it is though, as you write, primarily literacy that you value, then why limit yourself to the West and to Christianity? Practically all cultures are literate. So, you see, this isn't really enough to justify your case in this thread. There must be something *about* Western literacy that is compelling to you.

As for the book, I did read bits of it, in particular bits of the chapters that you recommended, and I wasn't overly enthused. I mean, it was well enough written, and in an ideal world with unlimited time and concentration, I probably would read it in its entirety, but as it is, that book just doesn't interest me as much as other topics. I am less concerned about our past than about our future, although, obviously, there are dangers in excluding the past too much, because we can learn so much from it, and thus avoid repeating old mistakes or making certain new ones.

[Felasco]

Gustav, a quickie, I have figured it out. Science is the arena for you. Your considerable skills and incurable passion for analysis would be entirely appropriate in the realm of science, and if that should be your pursuit, I withdraw all complaints and challenges.

If you should choose to remain focused on religion, a word of caution. The mystic is in the room, in the bed, having sex. The theologian is standing outside, looking in the window, taking notes. Remember that the next time you start going all masculine on us.

[Felasco]

Hi Harry,

Certainly, you do, with your belief in the divisiveness of thought. Is this (the "divisiveness" of thought) such a bad thing though? You seem to think that it is. I don't agree.

It's neither bad nor good, but simply the fact of the matter. Water is wet, thought is divisive, these are the properties of these natural elements. The wetness of water is good in some cases, and bad in other cases, and so it is with the divisiveness of thought.

The divisiveness of thought is a good thing when it comes to meeting the needs of the body (science etc) and becomes an obstacle in the realm of spirituality, ie, meeting the needs of the mind.

What is definitively "bad" is having no interest in the properties of the medium we are made of. Such a lack of interest condemns one to an eternally shallow understanding of the issues we discuss here. It's sloppy philosophy indeed to focus only on the content of thought, while ignoring the source of the content.

I think that your notion of the "divisiveness" of thought is in itself "divisive", if I might put it like that.

Yes, you may, because it's true. My thought is no less divisive than any other thought. It has nothing to do with you and me, or this theory or that theory, but arises from the nature of thought itself.

As example, every ideology ever created divides against other ideologies, and within itself as well. This demonstrates that the source of the division is not the content of this or that ideology, but arises from something deeper, what all ideology is made of.

Christianity, an ideology explicitly about peace and unity, is a perfect example, as it divides in to an ever growing number of subfactions which then spend eternity arguing with each other. I come from a Catholic hertitage myself, and not long ago spent some months exploring the Catholic web. They are at each other's throats like nobody's business.

And so I ask you and other readers, if an ideology specifically about peace and unity, which has had 2,000 years to mature, is still divided and arguing, what are the chances that any ideology we might cook up here will bring anything new?

You guys aren't aren't following the evidence where it leads. You want me to reason and analyze with you, but I suggest it is you who is not reasoning and analyzing.

I get that you are not arguing explicitly that *all* thought be avoided, but, well, sometimes it seems that you argue as much implicitly.

This thread is about religion, and that's what I'm addressing myself to. In the realm of science, of course thought is essential.

You criticise thought so much that it almost seems as if you *do* want to be rid of it altogether.

This is an understandable impression, a by-product of sloppy writing on my part. But I ask you to appreciate how challenging my task is here. As philosophers, you guys are incurably fixated on the content of thought, and refuse to raise your gaze to the source of that content. In frustration with that blindness, I do sometimes wander in to rhetorical excess, agreed.

[Harry Baird]

Just a bit of a summing-up and clarifying post: Gustav, it seems to me that it ought to be a high priority for you to get to the bottom of exactly what it is that is both unique and valuable about Christianity / Western culture. Isn't this the essence of your value system (and indeed of the topic of this thread), and ought it not to be as clear as possible in your own mind at least, and preferably to others with whom you communicate about it, especially in this thread? Aren't you supposed to be kicking the asses of pansies, not thinking like them? "Ooo, it's all too big and complex for my poor little brain, I just can't work it out". Piffle.

I don't know whether anyone else in this thread has worked out exactly what it is that you find both unique and valuable about our culture - certainly I haven't been able to work it out. A couple of posts back I eliminated a few possibilities and was left with one kind-of-maybe candidate: its soteriological approach, but as I wrote there, this one's kind of dubious because other cultures have soteriological approaches too, and it's not clear what is particularly unique and valuable about ours. You have also suggested literacy, but again, our culture is far from the only literate culture in the world.

You have also at various times mentioned science, but as Skip points out, many cultures have employed the scientific method. Even a culture as ancient as the Mayans had a science of astronomy so advanced that, according to the figures on this page, the result of their calculation of the exact duration of the lunar (synodic) month differs from the modern value by only about 0.000914%, and apparently they were even capable of predicting eclipses. That's some pretty astronomical science (heh).

It seems to me that the main innovation of the scientific approach developed by the West is that of the peer-reviewed journal, which greatly facilitates public scientific cooperation. Perhaps you would argue that this innovation is an (inevitable) outcome of the Western culture that you value so much, and perhaps you would be correct, but right now it doesn't seem like an obvious argument to me - it seems possible that this innovation might have occurred in any literate culture, and that we were just lucky to have happened upon it in the West.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. You are of course free to leave us all in the dark, but it kind of makes me wonder about the purpose of this thread. I'm not sure how it's even serving you if you can't even identify those aspects of Western culture that you value so highly. Felasco seems to admire your analytical mind; in this respect, though, it doesn't seem to be all that impressive.

Oh, and I see Felasco's posted, so I'll append a reply to him onto this otherwise-summing-up post:

Felasco,

OK, so you say that the divisiveness of thought is a barrier to spirituality. Well, sure, if you are looking for a mystical experience of unity, then you probably are going to want to still your "divisive" thoughts - but then, no one in this thread is arguing with you over that. I think the point of difference is really over your apparent contention that this is *all* that there is to spirituality, or at least that this is all there *ought* to be, and that philosophical/theological thinking is futile.

Your argument seems to be... no, wait, I can express myself more confidently than that given the number of times you've repeated your argument. Your argument *is* that philosophical/theological thinking is futile because there is far from universal agreement on most philosophical/theological issues, even after so many millennia during which the human species has been contemplating and discussing them.

Well, hmm. OK, so you do have something of a point - if we can't have any confidence in finding the right answer, then why look for the answer in the first place, right? OK, fair enough. But I have two rejoinders:

1. What if the answers we *do* develop are helpful to us anyway, regardless of whether or not they are "right"?
2. What if some people *do* have the right answers, or *have* had them, or *are* capable of developing them, and can be / have been confident in both their answers and their justifications for them, even if the rest of the world doesn't share them? Aren't *those* people in possession of something very valuable?

To elaborate, under my "Harry 2.1.2 Baird" alias, on #1: philosophy can be understood on some level as the basic approach to life and decision-making that one takes. In this sense, we are all philosophers, and having a philosophy is unavoidable. You certainly have a philosophy on this level: that life is about love, and that love should be a prime consideration in our decision-making processes. Is this philosophy "right" or "wrong"? I would suggest that it's difficult to provide an entirely objective answer to that question. And would you give up this philosophy as "futile" just because it might not be universally agreed upon?

You might agree with me then that a more communal and intricate philosophical/religious/spiritual/theological system, regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong" (to the extent that that question is even meaningful), provides a framework according to which people can live their lives, and, in particular, make decisions. We might then judge philosophical thinking not so much by whether it is "objectively right" or "universally agreed upon", but by its suitability and success as the basis for our decision-making. We might then tend to value the established communal systems because, having been around for so long, there has been plenty of opportunity for all the kinks and inconsistencies to have been ironed out, so that - depending on how well they accord with our own values - they offer a coherent, tried-and-tested and successful basis for making life decisions.

Anyhow, I could probably add different perspectives to that, but that might be enough to give you a sense of where I'm coming from. What do you make of it?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

If it is though, as you write, primarily literacy that you value, then why limit yourself to the West and to Christianity? Practically all cultures are literate. So, you see, this isn't really enough to justify your case in this thread. There must be something *about* Western literacy that is compelling to you.

Oh no, you haven't got it right. Other cultures are indeed literate, of that there is no doubt, and some of them are uniquely literate and in that sense distinct. But Western culture, and in this sense Greco-Christian culture, and Mediterranean culture, and post-Roman European culture, in my view and that of others too (I didn't invent it), is extremely unique. It is true that in Sanskrit culture there is an extraordinary amount of material there (the Vedas in the widest sense). Some of it is very special and unique, no doubt there. But it did not come close to approaching, say, that of Greek culture. While I am not an expert in any other language-system I have spent some time investigating the Vedas. There is nothing in it that compares, almost in any sense, to Aristotelean or Platonic depth and breadth of thinking. The 'Greek world' is in this sense very unique.

In any case, it is fair to ask that you or any other person have some familiarity with what is being referred to when reference is made to the Greeks. Euclidean geometry and math generally, the histories of Thucydides, the Greek Tragedies, the Greek humorists, Plato, Aristotle, etc. All the sources and resources of what one would call The Western Canon pretty much stem from these areas.

To define 'what about it' is compelling to me, is not the topic of conversation I am interested in having with you. What you can do is make it into a research project.

The reason why one specific area seems to have a *special value* is a complex question. I wonder this myself as have many others. In no sense must one limit oneself to the West. However, what one finds (or what I have found) is that there is a unique and distinct focus in the Western material. And it is true as well that some of the 'best and brightest', firmly grounded in the West (Hermann Hesse is an example and the German School too) expanded their 'base' as it were into Oriental texts, religious ideas, and more. Yet it seems to be true that 'The Western Material', as 'literary preparation', allows for or 'creates' a *literary person* uniquely able to plunge into those texts and sources, but in doing so (I have noted) they bring all the skills and aptitudes that the Greco-Christian tradition has availed them, and with this they seem to exalt, again, that very system that produced them. I refer to Hesse again. His Siddartha appears to be a book about the East. It really isn't. It is very Western and essentially Christian man (hyper-Christian!) who moves into Eastern scenery and ideation but is really a reflection and an expansion of the Greco-Christian traditions.

Our literary traditions, in their widest sense, have no comparable counterpart.

I don't feel I need a 'justification' for the content of this thread, and if a justification could be offered, I am not certain if you are qualified to provide it. Or do you see it differently?

To ask 'What about it is to be valued?' is in a sense a confession of your ignorance about it or any other one. Find out for yourself. Or, investigate some other source and tradition to the point that you would have enough to speak about and then make a comparison. But mostly, look to and into your own self as you are 'an outcome' of unique cultural strains. In this sense you are very, very Greco-Christian and yet I don't think you understand what that means, nor why.

Still, and with that said, there is a critique that is possible of the Greco-Christians (etc.) and indeed 'the West' and everything we have done and said. It is the Ultra-Traditionalist's understanding that Western culture, and definitely Western technological culture, represent, if taken alone, a deviation from certain defined Absolutes. Our science, which we place so much stock in, is not regarded so highly. I think their views with accord with some of your own. Our science-technology mastery allows an aspect of a lower-dimensional man's will to invade and disrupt the 'prakritic' world, and the power it avails us is a false or a Mephistophelean power. It has allowed for culture to go haywire. Et voilà! The Present.

[Felasco]

OK, so you say that the divisiveness of thought is a barrier to spirituality.

Yes and no, which I admit is a confusing reply. I believe thought is capable of seeing the limitations of thought, the distortions it introduces, which is what I've been trying to do here.

Well, sure, if you are looking for a mystical experience of unity, then you probably are going to want to still your "divisive" thoughts - but then, no one in this thread is arguing with you over that.

It is the inherently divisive nature of thought which generates the apparent separation (ie. the human condition) which religion then attempts to heal. That's the bottom line I am attempting to point to.

A "mystical experience of unity" is not a sideline, some little corner of some religion, an obscure optional maybe someday thing, it is the well spring which all religion erupts from like a volcano.

I think the point of difference is really over your apparent contention that this is *all* that there is to spirituality, or at least that this is all there *ought* to be, and that philosophical/theological thinking is futile.

It's not futile if it is used to discover that symbols are not the thing they point to, if it is seen that theology is not real, not religion, but merely symbols, talk about religion.

It's as if we've become so fascinated with our photo album that we've lost interest in the real living friends the photos point to. If we want to aim our full intelligence and attention at the real friends, we have to set the photo album down. Put it away for crying out loud, they're just photos, dead pieces of paper.

Your argument *is* that philosophical/theological thinking is futile because there is far from universal agreement on most philosophical/theological issues, even after so many millennia during which the human species has been contemplating and discussing them.

Thought (including philosophical/theological thinking) is THE SOURCE of the apparent separation and division which causes us so much pain, and gives rise to religion, an attempt to find a reunification, a healing. Theology is like poring gasoline on a fire in the hopes of putting the fire out.

Are you guys interested in evidence, you know, reason? Have you noticed that theism/atheism threads on all the forums go on day after day, year after year, decade after decade, and nothing is ever settled? Do you notice that the main product of such threads is usually more division, personal acrimony, a hardening of positions? Do you recall that this pattern started thousands of years ago? Do you recall it has led to a great many pointless murders and wars in every corner of the world?

I get frustrated with hearing all these little lectures about reason, while the lecturers blatantly ignore the readily available evidence all around us.

1. What if the answers we *do* develop are helpful to us anyway, regardless of whether or not they are "right"?

This is a good argument for theology, I agree. Humans want to know, and theology gives us an answer we can memorize, which creates the illusion that we know. I don't dispute this is useful to many people, if you will agree it is also a great source of conflict.

I would add that pretending one knows the answer is a mediocre business at best. It's not my intent to rip these fantasies from those who need them, but it seems to me our purpose here is to try to go farther if we can.

2. What if some people *do* have the right answers, or *have* had them, or *are* capable of developing them, and can be / have been confident in both their answers and their justifications for them, even if the rest of the world doesn't share them? Aren't *those* people in possession of something very valuable?

Reason would indicate that it's highly unlikely that a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a species recently living in caves, with thousands of nuclear missiles aimed down it's own throat, is in a position to know the answers to the ultimate scale questions that religion often attempts to ask.

Let me ask you this, rhetorical question, not expecting a personal answer. Do you think about theology while having sex? If the apparent separation is healed, the problem theology is attempting to address is solved, right? Why care about theology then? Theology is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

You certainly have a philosophy on this level: that life is about love, and that love should be a prime consideration in our decision-making processes. Is this philosophy "right" or "wrong"?

As a philosophy, it is wrong, because it is a philosophy, a talking of the talk, not the walking of the walk. It is the walk that heals, not the talk. We don't need another 2,000 years of theology to know that love works. We need to do it.

You might agree with me then that a more communal and intricate philosophical/religious/spiritual/theological system, regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong" (to the extent that that question is even meaningful), provides a framework according to which people can live their lives, and, in particular, make decisions.

We already know what to do. The challenge is in the actual doing. Love is difficult indeed, no argument there, but it's not complicated. It's the simpleness of love that makes it so challenging. There's no where to hide. In each moment, we do it, or we don't.

We might then judge philosophical thinking not so much by whether it is "objectively right" or "universally agreed upon", but by its suitability and success as the basis for our decision-making.

Are we talking about choosing an economic or politcal system, or religion?

We might then tend to value the established communal systems because, having been around for so long, there has been plenty of opportunity for all the kinks and inconsistencies to have been ironed out, so that - depending on how well they accord with our own values - they offer a coherent, tried-and-tested and successful basis for making life decisions.

They are not reliable or trustworthy at all. The facts are we have thousands of nuclear missiles aimed down our own throats, and don't find this fact worthy of much discussion. The fact is that we are destroying the environment we depend on pretty much as fast as we can. The fact is that we are insane.

What do you make of it?

Hope my replies are of some use. Thanks for your time and participation!

[Harry Baird]

Thank you, Gustav, that was a helpful post. I think I get a better sense of what you value in the Western traditions now: I think what you value particularly is the *systematic approach to thinking* - systematic in the sense of analytical, logical and rational - and the commitment to applying this systematic approach to all areas of life and knowledge. Perhaps the existence of this mode of thinking in the West might after all be an argument as to why the West was uniquely qualified to develop the modern scientific approach.

Felasco. Hmm. I thought I brought something new to the table, which I had hoped addressed the various points you have been repeating, so for you to respond to a large extent by simply repeating those same points again is... kind of frustrating. In any case, let me cut to the chase: the difference between us is that you say that philosophy/theology/etc are "futile", whereas I say they are "unavoidable".

How is it possible to go about one's life without any beliefs about the world that might fit into the category of "philosophical"? Isn't that what you're suggesting we do, implicitly if not explicitly? But even you don't do this! Your philosophy is one of love. You complain at my pointing this out to you that it is "wrong" to philosophise about love, but nevertheless it IS your philosophy, and you DO promote it as such - in thoughtful words, no less.

You point out that atheists and theists are at one another's throats, but what is the alternative? Some people have had spiritual encounters with divinity - should they pretend that they haven't, and ignore their own formative experiences? Isn't it reasonable that our experiences shape our beliefs? I agree though that the arguments are futile, largely because I think atheists are simply wrong - not only factually wrong, but wrong to keep arguing in the face of those who have evidence that proves them to be factually wrong - but I don't think the philosophical/theological beliefs at the heart of the arguments are futile. If you had a spiritual encounter with divinity, I am very sure it would affect your philosophical/theological beliefs too, as well as the way you approached your life - as it very well should! In no sense would those beliefs be "futile".

The peculiar thing to me is that you are engaged in the very thing you object to: philosophising, and "dividing off" that philosophy - please correct me if I'm wrong, but your philosophy seems to be something like this: "Love is all we need. We all know how to love without having to think about it, but this doesn't make it easy to love. Thinking about anything other than practical and scientific matters is futile. Thinking divides us from nature, which is a form of sickness, which we can heal by spending time in nature having mystical unifying experiences". OK, great, so now you have a philosophy... but, sadly, it is not universally agreed upon - Gustav for one challenges you on it. Oh dear. Since it's not universally agreed upon, then, according to your reasoning, it must be futile. Uh oh! Paradox alert!

Where do you go from here?!