Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Socrates

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Louise, I agree totally. I read a Carl Jung quote to the affect that the subconcious like God and the Devil are borderline concepts about something we don t
    Message 1 of 109 , Nov 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise,

      I agree totally. I read a Carl Jung quote to the affect that the subconcious like God and the Devil are borderline concepts about something we don't know too much about. That being so, its to be expected that the people in power will utilize their power to present concepts of God that support the political and economic structure. Nietzche said somewhere something to the affect that the submissive use dogma as an excuse to submit, whereas the dominant use religion as a tool to dominate.During the middle ages, the burning of heretics was seen as essential, since heresy was bringing into question the validity of the whole political, social, economic structure. Of course, the Romans throwing Christians to the lions was along similar lines. It's interesting how whither it be Christianity or Communism, it is one thing when its an underground cult, but becomes quite another when it becomes the dogma of the state. This is the reason that there is a clause in the US constitution forbidding the establishment of a state religion. Historically, religions had an incentive to align with the various monarchies both to avoid being killed or imprisoned, and also to become the recipients of land for monastaries and churches etc. Even under conditions of modern, democratic capitalism, to pay the notes and utilities on the church, it is quite helpful to gain the support of the wealthy. If I recall correctly, Jesus often spoke to the people in open fields etc, because the use or ownership of a church involves pleasing the temporal powers. Its like a saying I heard years ago that"God created man, and man created God". Certainly man created God to justify political,economic, social structures, which already existed or which were created with the help of the new dogma.Of course, to partially justify the use of dogma by the ruling class, if the population were not united into a certain degree of unity, they were often overrun and either killed, enslaved, or colonized by other more fascist countries. So to a certain extent, the ruling class could think quite correctly that the use of dogoma etc was necesary for the survival and prospering of the nation. Machiavelli said that to obtain and maintain power, it was necesary for the prince to put power the number one priority. Otherwise, power will be lost to others that do put it number one.

      Tom
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: louise
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:19 AM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Socrates


      Tom,

      I know that I need to re-think some of my beliefs, before presenting
      argument. My impression is simply that when politics is so
      resolutely excluded from an account of religious history, the
      explanations are rather abstract. Just what is to be included in
      politics? This is a most urgent question for me. Bill has often
      provided us with most insightful analyses of the current situations
      in various parts of the world. What we seem to lack at the list is
      a sense of how we got here, so to speak.

      Louise
      ... continuing non-political

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I think the change from polytheistic paganism to monotheistic
      Judeochristianity was largely determined and supported by the fact
      that Judeochristianity was more conductive to supporting the
      patriarchal family structure than paganism. I believe the growth of
      the patriarchal family structure gave advantages in military,
      agricultural and commercial activities that by natural selection
      forced less efficient methods to be overrun by the family oriented
      leadership. The fact that a man could look forward for several
      generations encouraged longer term planning which gave advantages.
      As Christianity replaced paganism, sex was transformed from an
      expression of the divine to an expression of the diabolical, the
      pagan gods and goddesses were either converted to Christian saints
      or to devils in the case of Pan, and pagan days of festivities were
      changed to holy days. Interestingly, when pagans or witches
      celebrated their feasts on the same day as the Christian holy day,
      they were accused of blasphemy for celebrating their day of evil on
      a Christian holy day[of course the reality was that Christianity had
      taken their day, not vice versa].Constantine converting to
      Christianity and making it the state religion created the Holy Roman
      Empire and the dark ages.
      >
      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: louise
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:58 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Socrates
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Louise,
      > >
      > > Thanks.
      > >
      > > The derivation of the term is in some dispute.
      >
      > Yes, as you point out, the ancients themselves disagreed about
      its
      > origin. Personally, I trust the expertise of Walter Skeat, and
      find
      > it implausible, that 're-ligare' could give rise to the
      > form 'religio'. Cicero's derivation from 'relegere', yielding
      the
      > participle 'relegens', revering the gods, does appear in the
      > dictionary. From an existential viewpoint, I wonder how such
      > revering is possible today. Where is the expression of religious
      > feeling, in our modern world? There is plenty of worship, and
      much
      > good works. The sense of the sacred seems to me unacknowledged
      by
      > most satire. Its possibility is simply passed by. The function
      of
      > satire properly has a corrective element to it. We live in a
      time
      > of such overwhelming timidity, about offending others, that
      > avoidance, distraction, or brutal attack, has been replacing the
      > spirit of enquiry and rebellion. L.
      >
      > What I said was what my old
      > > Latin instructor held to be the case, following the dictionary
      we
      > used at that
      > > time, which I can no longer remember. But the following is
      from
      > Wikopedia,
      > > which is close to what I had said:
      > >
      > > "The ultimate origins of Latin religio are obscure. It is
      usually
      > accepted to
      > > derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-
      > ligare, i.e. re
      > > (again) + ligare or "to reconnect." This interpretation is
      > favoured by modern
      > > scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell, but was made
      > prominent by
      > > St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.
      Another
      > possibility
      > > is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare. A historical
      > interpretation due
      > > to Cicero on the other hand connects lego "read", i.e. re
      (again)
      > + lego in the
      > > sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".[5]
      It
      > may also be
      > > from Latin religi_, religi_n-, perhaps from relig_re, to tie
      fast."
      > >
      > > Wil,
      > >
      > >
      > > In a message dated 11/29/08 5:01:05 PM, hecubatoher@ writes:
      > >
      > >
      > > > Wil,
      > > >
      > > > Your Latin etymology is awry. 'Legio' is the word for a body
      of
      > > > soldiers, whence we derive our word 'legion'. The
      verb 'relegio'
      > > > does not appear in the dictionary. According to Skeat, the
      > > > derivation of 'religio', meaning piety, is not 'religare',
      to
      > bind,
      > > > as sometimes claimed. The word is allied to 'religens',
      fearing
      > the
      > > > gods, and the opposed meaning is 'negligens', negligent; it
      is
      > also
      > > > allied to 'diligens', diligent. Thus 'religion'
      and 'neglect' are
      > > > from the same root LEG, which appears also in
      Greek, 'alego', to
      > > > have a care for, to heed, which appears in the Iliad, in
      > relation to
      > > > care, or neglect, of what is due to the gods. Your assertion
      that
      > > > pagan thought is more about care of the self according to the
      > > > science of ethics sounds like a restricting of the meaning
      to the
      > > > later development of Greek culture. Later, that is, than the
      > > > primitivity of Homeric epic, which nevertheless is evidence
      of an
      > > > extremely high civilisation.
      > > >
      > > > Louise
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > **************
      > > Finally, one site has it all: your friends, your email, your
      > > favorite sites. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?
      > optin=new-dp&
      > > icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000006)
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • tom
      Aija, The term pagan means rural person, and I ve heard during the middle ages that Christianity was the religion of the big cities, and centers of politics;
      Message 109 of 109 , Nov 30, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Aija,
        The term pagan means rural person, and I've heard during the middle ages that Christianity was the religion of the big cities, and centers of politics; but the rural areas still followed nature based paganism,although often through discretion was used to avoid persecutions by the powers of the state.Often on the surface, rural churches were Christian, but in reality pagan. I've heard the same situation has existed in South America and the Caribean.
        Tom


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Aija Veldre Beldavs
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:43 AM
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Socrates



        whither it be Christianity or Communism, it is one thing when its an
        underground cult, but becomes quite another when it becomes the dogma of
        the state.
        > Tom

        there's also a difference in level between folk religion and
        centralizing state religion when state religion is normalized and
        enforced with frozen texts and laws with a universalizing power level in
        contrast to the limiting power of what is only locally enforceable for a
        while.

        too often the grounds-up, self-organizing, oral nature of fluid creative
        folk phenomena resulting in a total effect of ongoing local community
        and individual versions and variants is ignored.

        aija,
        recalling the moment in the film "Lord of the Rings" where Galadriel
        refuses the ring. Frodo, recognizing his own smallness in contrast to
        the task, is willing to give her the ring as he was not willing to give
        it to others. Galadriel shows Frodo how anything, even what is seen as
        good and light, raised to absolute power becomes terrifying and changed.
        but having passed the test, she gives the Fellowship the gift of light
        when other lights die out. this suggests other collective myths, such
        as the one about hope when all else is gone.





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.