Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00233)

Dear Adelasie,

Your thoughts are much appreciated, and tie in to a discussion now 
going on in another forum I frequent. (Intended to post a link, but 
realized that only subscribers can read there.)

You wrote:
> 
> Do you suppose that an "end justifies the means" attitude could be 
> said to characterize organized religion in general? 

Absolutely. If morality is defined by the dictates of a God, rather 
than being a matter of natural rights, then whatever serves God's 
alleged interests is right and whatever conflicts with said interests 
is wrong. Hence, trashing a book for religious reasons, in violating 
of professional ethics, as in the case that has me so exercised today.

It seems that, no 
> matter which body of philosophy we consider, after the inception, 
it begins to degenerate until it becomes pretty much the same thing 
it was originally opposed to. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing in 
the name of God become the rule. 
> 
The Jungian concept of enantiodromia is very interesting here.  
Derived from Heraclitus, it's the idea that things turn into their 
opposites by an unconscious process. But as long as I'm citing a 
totally unscientific explanation for this kind of thing, I'll go 
whole hog and bring in Gurdjieff. His notion of A, B, and C 
influences helps me understand how this kind of thing always happens 
in "spiritual" organizations. More enlightened consciousness is 
constantly releasing uplifting energies, or C influences, that are 
said to emanate from the Conscious Circle of Humanity. But they 
immediately interact and combine with A influences, those of ordinary 
mechanical life. Result, mixed or B influences in which it can be 
very tricky to sort out the higher from the lower.

> It seems that perhaps the descent of the sublime and pure truth 
into the dense material plane of human habitation and mental activity 
> makes it pretty difficult for its purity to be maintained. As soon 
as it takes on form, it begins to be corrupted, and those who receive 
it necessarily try to clothe it in the same old familiar conceptual 
> tradition.
> 
For which reason, says Gurdjieff, the conscious circle must 
continually emanate fresh C influences, because entropy (not his word 
for this, of course) is continually degrading the previous ones. I 
think humanity could use a fresh infusion right about now!

> Better the familiar darkness than the unfamiliar Light?
> 
Alas, the light of Darwinism has been around for 150 years, and the 
fundamentalists are still fighting it in favor of the familiar 
darkness of creationism!

Cheers,

Paul


> 
> On 21 Dec 2005 at 15:06, kpauljohnson wrote:
> 
> > Dear Doss,
> > 
> > The aspect of the judge's ruling that I find most interesting is 
his
> > exposure of the shameless deception practiced by the ID 
advocates, who
> > relentlessly lied about their religious motivations despite 
abundant
> > evidence that leaves no doubt about it.
> > 
> > People sometimes express surprise that supposedly religious folk 
would
> > lie so readily and enthusiastically for their cause. I suspect 
that
> > willingness to engage in this kind of fraud is actually more 
common
> > among true believers (in whatever system of belief) than among
> > agnostics or atheists.   
> > 
> > Paul
> >
>