> We have relagated the gods to phychological abstractions in most
> cases. This is the most rationally satisfying explanation.
This makes it sound like we've banished them to Corsica or something.
We need not have such a low opinion of psychology to think that it demeans
or disempowers the gods to take such a position. Psychological states are
not abstractions, they are immediate apperceptions by the faculty of
consciousness, actual events no less real than a boot to the head. The
abstraction is thinking that the gods are nebulous persons "out there"
somewhere beyond us, a father in the sky, a mother in the soil. In defining
the gods as having a psychological nature, I affirm my daily, indeed
constant, intercourse with them. Their existence becomes not an article of
faith, but a fact of experience. They are in me, and "there is no part of me
that is not of the gods." The idea that the gods are just trifles of the
imagination does not necessarily follow from seeing them as psychological,
nor is it any more rational, depending as it does on the axiomatic
assumption of a categorical and ontological distinction between objectivity
> Are the Gods real?
> Can we contact Hoor-Apep by building a pyramid?
Yeah, but he prefers email :-)
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com)
Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/2003