Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Comments (3.1) - Many religions, common themes, different schemes
Message-ID: <584@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Apr-84 14:21:28 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.584
Posted: Wed Apr 18 14:21:28 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 04:26:21 EST
References: <581@pyuxn.UUCP> <583@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 60

Steven Crane (coyote---another use of Jeff Sargent's login) makes the point
that it's a matter of god's will versus ours, that an individual could never
hope to win such a battle of wills, that those who choose to wrap themselves
up in themselves and their "wants and urges" are surely damned.  Someone else
later pointed out, in response to a response about "surrendering to god",
that god *is* like an enemy to whom you must surrender.

Wow!  What a nasty god!  I'll avoid the rehashed arguments by Tim Maroney,
myself, and now some others, that worshipping such a hideous, willful god
is an abomination.  (Those opposed would then say: "That's the way it is!
Worship or be damned!", and someone else would say: ...)

Buddhism (in a much gentler way) suggest that desire (wants? urges?) is the
root of all suffering.  Aside from the Zen-like notion that by not desiring
or seeking one will find the real goal/truth (which I'm beginning to believe
more and more is really applicable), there is another hidden notion that is
so close to Judaeo-Christian thought that we're positively missing it.
They're both saying the same thing:  physical urges and wants can often be
contrary to our "best interests".  Thus, as long as we have physical bodies
with chemicals running rampant combined with a pseudo-rational virtual
machine called the mind (whether it is a consequent chemical construct in the
brain or an external agent is irrelevant, though the latter is not necessary),
as long as we have this dichotomy, there will be conflict, and this will
continue to be so until we have shirked our physical bodies and become pure
intellect (whatever that means----wouldn't even an AI-based "thinking machine"
have physical needs?  Electricity?  Mightn't its "reflexes" (operating
system) and instincts result in other "wants"?)

Eastern philosophy (and I'm the furthest thing from an expert) seems to take
a rationalist sort of view of these things, but not totally.  Just because
something is the "best" path for me to take, does that oblige me to take it?
A balanced philosophy would recognize physical needs and wants as real and
genuine, and would counterbalance these with rationality (Could I hurt others
or myself by doing this thing?)  Purists might feel obliged to seek the
best path only, but why should others?

On the other side of the coin, Judaeo-Christian thought takes a parental
view of these things:  THESE THINGS ARE BAD FOR YOU AND YOU MUST NOT DO
THEM!!!!!!  I've always said that no one should adhere to a philosophy
unless they understand the reasons behind the belief system.  Otherwise,
you wind up like one of those future societies in post-nuclear-holocaust
science-fiction stories.  "No, the holy sign says "NO LEFT TURN", thus
none of us may turn left at any time.  Praise the Holy Highway Department!"
Authoritarian belief systems (even those that say "it's your choice, but
ignore the rules and you're dogdirt for eternity") deny that right of
understanding what you believe in, speaking for people "on their behalf,
in their best interest".  If you don't have the hard facts, what right does
such a belief system have to declare its tenets the only correct way for all
other people?  And what rights do its advocates have to punish transgressors?
We are all individuals with unique needs, desires, and perspectives.  A
society should be based on the concept that it should safeguard the rights and
needs of all individuals, meaning that it provides for individual freedom
while delineating individual responsibility not to interfere in the rights of
others (as well as an agreed-upon definition for individual responsibility
to the community that the individual chooses to belong to).

[CONTINUED]
-- 
Pardon me for ...  oh, never mind!!
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr