Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!riddle
From: riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Stranger in a Strange Land
Message-ID: <534@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Dec-83 12:00:21 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.534
Posted: Tue Dec  6 12:00:21 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 01:37:27 EST
References: <4014@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 47

The full quote, as I remember it, is "Thou art God and I am God and
all that groks is God."  It's just your basic universalism, an idea
MUCH older than Robert A. Heinlein.

Back in junior high I was a real Heinlein devotee.  "Stranger in a
Strange Land" (like most of Heinlein's books) is full of an abundance
of ideas which I found fascinating back then:  "water brotherhood",
a sort of all-encompassing group marriage; a no-punches-pulled criticism
of organized religion; nominalism and the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis; and
of course Heinlein's image of the rational macho individualist taking on
the whole world and winning.  At the time I really believed most of this
stuff (a friend of mine and I even became water brothers and fully
intended to grow up, recruit some girls, and live out our lives like
Heinlein's characters).  As I grew older, though, I discovered that it
doesn't all work quite like Heinlein says, however persuasive he may
appear to be on his own turf.  Some of his ideas have stuck with me and
I've turned around 180 degrees with respect to others.  All in all I'm
glad I went through that phase, as it certainly made me think about an
awful lot of things at an age when I really needed it.  Now, however,
my overall impression of Heinlein is that he's a bit of a fascist, has
one of the biggest heads around, and can't write about people worth a
damn.

As for universalism, let me say first that I am an atheist with occasional
agnostic tendencies; nevertheless, universalism in some of its manifestations
appeals to me a lot.  It's a nice myth, at least, and certainly corresponds
more closely with my idea of morality than the judeo-christian myths do.
The notion that all humans, even all sentient beings, are really part of a
single whole and that this whole is the God that makes sense of the universe
lends more worth to individual dignity than some fearsome Jehovah or even
than a loving God who sacrifices Himself to redeem us miserable sinners. One
moral implication seen by some in universalism is that if I hurt you, I'm
really hurting myself at the same time;  under this formula, "love thy
neighbor" and "love thyself" reduce to the same thing.  Taken in the proper
light, that's a religious metaphor that can appeal even to a horrid "secular
humanist" like me.

As I say, Heinlein didn't invent universalism.  Its roots go back at least
to the beginnings of hinduism and buddhism (although not all hindus and
buddhists see the moral implications in it that I outlined above!) and it
has also flourished before on American soil.  If I remember, I'll post an
Emerson poem on the subject some time soon.
----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP