[FoRK] Re: Please Help

[Devon Jones]

Lion Kimbro wrote:
>   These people read natural history as sacred scripture, and
>   make it their duty to understand the story of wherever they
>   live.
>   
Now see, this is somewhat problematic, given that a naturalistic view is 
diametrically opposed to the concept of something being unquestionable 
(which is my read of the word "sacred").  The point of a naturalistic 
view point is (IMHO) A) that "I Don't Know" is far more valid then 
making something up and B) there is probably always a more accurate way 
of looking at things, so nothing is beyond questioning.
>   Evolutionary spirituality isn't about "turning a blind eye"
>   to anything.  Many of these people study sociology,
>   mimetics, semiotics, and so on.  "What does it mean
>   to hold something sacred?"
>
>   They have discussions about, "What should we hold
>   sacred, if anything?"
>   
What does one mean by sacred? if one means an unquestionable axiom then 
I would say nothing should be held sacred, if one means ideals that one 
wants to aspire to, there there is a lot to hold sacred.  Perception is 
inherently flawed, so for me, the search for the ability to cancel out 
as much of the error of human perception through the use of increasingly 
clever tests of reality is probably the highest form of progress. That 
ideal could be interpreted as "sacred", but it is not axiomatic.
>   There is complete and utter openness to discussion
>   about any of these questions.
>
>   I think all of us have  "magical, wishful thinking."  We
>   fall in love with other people, right?
>   
Presumably there is a naturalistic cause to people falling in love. are 
you opining that you prefer to view that as magic, even if you recognize 
there is at some level a nuts and bolts explanation to it?
>   I don't think we should wish it away.  I think we just
>   need to live with it, in a way that enriches ourselves,
>   our society, other peoples' societies, the Earth, and
>   so on.  It can't control us, but by its nature, I don't
>   think it can (or should) be controlled by us, either.
>
>   The Universe is a much nicer place to me with a
>   dash of magic in it.  And I don't mean this in an
>   anti-Naturalistic way.  Reality is what Reality is,
>   and we should always take it full on.  Reality
>   comes first.
>   
I would think this would always be a retreating position though, sort of 
a "God of the Gaps" view of magic, because once there is an 
understandable and thorough explanation for something is it still magical?
>   That's why "The Great Story" is the Story of
>   the Changing Story -- because Reality is what
>   persists after you cease to believe in it.
>
>   Our Beliefs  <<  Reality
>
>   Reality is Our God, We Are Its Bitches.
>   This is humility.