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

9844Re: [ishmael_discussion] DQ controversy

Expand Messages
  • Janos Biro
    Apr 8, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      "Because if we didn't want to survive we would not. Evolution suggests not
      wanting to survive would pretty quickly eliminate us from the gene pool. So
      nature favors those who want to live."

      So? You are still implying we somehow SHOULD survive, even if we now have
      enough will not to.

      "From a materialistic point of view, wanting to survive is programmed into
      you. It isn't even programmed into your brain, it's in the fiber of your
      being. A single celled organism will seek out what they need to survive and
      seek to move away from that which would destroy it. That's some amazing
      strong programming."

      Why is that amazing and not sick or depressing?

      It's ironic. David Abram's "The Spell of the Sensuous" was my source of
      inspiration too. I even wrote about the concept of spirit and it's origin.

      There is no one right way to tell what is truth and what is not?

      But, I do agree with you. I have no proof that Daniel Quinn is not the
      author of Ishmael, I just have the impression. The bankrupt problem could be
      over another book, I made me doubt my memory. Well, I am pretty sure I
      should not have said that, because it is irrelevant.

      I am wearing an old cloth I once wearied and shunned away. But, you know, a
      realized I just shunned it because I expected it to be something it's not
      supposed to be. It's not because I grow, but because I wanted something
      cooler. I don't want to relate to God as I relate to a piece of cloth. It's
      nothing like that. I believe because of love, not because it fits me.

      Janos

      2010/4/8 Stephen Figgins <stephen@...>

      >
      >
      > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Janos Biro <janosbirozero@...<janosbirozero%40gmail.com>>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > Do you think it is so easy to dismiss ethics? Think about it. What makes
      > > you
      > > think that 'wanting to live' is a neutral desire? Why do you think most
      > > people want to live? They flipped a coin or something? It's not because
      > > they
      > > think that life is a good thing, and death is a bad thing? Why would we
      > > want
      > > to survive anyway?
      > >
      >
      > Because if we didn't want to survive we would not. Evolution suggests not
      > wanting to survive would pretty quickly eliminate us from the gene pool. So
      > nature favors those who want to live.
      >
      > From a materialistic point of view, wanting to survive is programmed into
      > you. It isn't even programmed into your brain, it's in the fiber of your
      > being. A single celled organism will seek out what they need to survive and
      > seek to move away from that which would destroy it. That's some amazing
      > strong programming.
      >
      > While I lean towards materialism, I'm also fond of Husserl's Phenomenalism.
      > A really beautiful book on that subject is David Abram's The Spell of the
      > Sensuous. It sort of a philosophical look at animism. Anyway, there is
      > what I can know about the world, and then there is also how I experience
      > it. And my experience isn't of chemical reactions, its feelings and
      > connections and desires. So for me, that is more real than the
      > materialistic
      > explanation. I believe life is richer when I embrace it on this level.
      >
      > Recognizing the material explanation, however, helps me when i need to step
      > back from those things and evaluate whether they are helping me or not.
      > I'm also reminded that my reality isn't everyone's reality and that there
      > is
      > no one right way to experience the world.
      >
      >
      > > You are right, we are in the middle of a process now. People are getting
      > > close to those ideas. But, as I said, this is just another version of
      > > humanism, secular or religious. Is there anything good about people
      > > changing
      > > their minds in this direction? This mundane spirituality? This so called
      > > environmental responsibility? This destruction of traditions? The letting
      > > go
      > > of definitions and embrace of multiplicity and complexity? You are
      > talking
      > > about modernization, globalization, further domestication. I don't think
      > > there's anything about it that I do not understand, I simply saying we
      > > should question this world view too.
      > >
      >
      > I don't recall saying anything in particular about modernization,
      > globalization and further domestication. Nor do I think I'm making any
      > particularly humanist statement here. You seem to be reading something
      > there that I hadn't intended.
      >
      > While I see encouraging signs that our culture is beginning to question
      > some
      > of the basic premises of civilization I do also see discouraging signs of
      > people entrenching in those premises. It's not all wonderful stuff. But I
      > still feel encouraged that some people are questioning them.
      >
      >
      > > I think the problem here is not my lack of understanding. It's amazing to
      > > see you reproducing every line of thought that I once thought it was so
      > > hard
      > > to grasp, but now looks so poor.
      > >
      >
      > I'm laughing now, because I have had this same experience with others who
      > were arguing from a place where I had once been. I used to be very
      > religious. It was like they were offering me some old clothes I had
      > outgrown. They just wouldn't fit anymore. It's happened to me more than
      > once. It's just how learning works I guess. I think it's a bit like a
      > circle or wheel. We keep going round and round. I don't know if you have
      > lapped me or I have lapped you, but we do seem to be coming from different
      > places.
      >
      > Sorry you're not hearing anything new in what I have to say. Some of this
      > may sound old because this is the Ishmael Discussion, and I am clarifying
      > and defending Quinn's position on things I think you have misrepresented.
      > So I am writing from a place in your past. This thread was about DQ
      > controversy.
      >
      > I think you are wrong about Quinn in terms of his not authoring Ishmael, or
      > that he in some way changed his message significantly. I don't see the
      > inconsistencies. I think if he had drawn from other sources he would
      > happily reference them as he does so many other books. I don't believe he
      > is a plagiarist any more than I think he's a fraud. I'm almost certain you
      > are wrong about the book Ishmael being out of print for years. At least it
      > wasn't out of print in English. It's been in print continuously since 1992.
      >
      > I definitely agree with continuing our learning and questioning. I didn't
      > stop with Ishmael and I don't expect others to either. I just haven't
      > taken the same turns you have. While maybe you didn't get much out of it,
      > I do appreciate that this conversation has given me another opportunity to
      > examine where I am at with regards to spirituality. You have also
      > recommended some other authors and books I want to check out since it
      > sounds
      > like they have something good to add to my understanding.
      >
      > Keep learning, and shunning those old clothes!
      >
      >
      > --
      > Stephen
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >



      --
      http://janosbiro.rg3.net


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic