From tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com Thu Apr 20 01:39:38 1995 Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id NAA16371; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:00:48 -0700 From: tyagi mordred nagasiva Message-Id: <199504192000.NAA16371@jobe.shell.portal.com> Subject: Re: Mixing, Matching, and Thanks To: mduskis@david.wheaton.edu (Michael A. Duskis) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Cc: talk-religion-misc@cs.utexas.edu, alt-magick-tyagi@cs.utexas.edu Reply-To: nagasiva@yronwode.com (mordred) In-Reply-To: <199504180324.AA21356@david.wheaton.edu> from "Michael A. Duskis" at Apr 17, 95 10:24:29 pm Followup-to: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 5208 Status: RO Kali Yuga 49950419 Michael A. Duskis and I continue our conversation: |>|If you had to classify your religious perspective, what |>|would you call yourself (Taoist,Wiccan,Atheist,Lutheran, etc)? |>None, all. I don't cling to a single perspective, religiously. |>I move around, mix and match, combine and dodge. |So what kinds of things are you looking for in a perspective? |I mean, when you mix, match, combine, and dodge, what is it in a |religious/spiritual/philosophical idea that attracts you or |repels you?? Wonderful questions! Lessee, * Coherence - That is, can *I* understand it? Does it make *logical* sense (regardless of whether I like it)? Is it self-consistent (even in admitting its own inconsistencies)? Does it explain what it sets out to explain or give reason why this is not done? * Imagination - Does the perspective intrigue my mind? Is it complex, challenging to ideas I've already learned which've become my favorites? Is it stimulating to my aesthetic, artistic taste? * Controversy - Does it contain aspects which are controversial or counter-cultural to a particular norm? As a Satanist I appreciate these kinds of things. Does it assist the individual to separate hirself from the establishment and conventional programming? * Functionality - Does it *work*? Can I find ways to apply it, that it conforms to my experience and may be investigated, explored and tested for its truth value (i.e. how well it fits in my life, not some sort of absolute 'Truth' thing)? Is it convincing to me? * Elegance - Can I find a beauty to its structure, the way it is described, the craft of the elements? Does it address particular and human dilemmas in novel and succinct ways? Is it workable without being a detriment to myself or others? * Complexity - Does it challenge my mind? Do I have to do a lot of additional study before approaching its central structure? I like concretized and ossified theoretics when they have a lot of meat to them and they take a lot of time and energy to absorb while still inspiring me as I learn about them, perhaps even engaging them and moving away, over and over. NOTE: at various times any of these may prove more important than the rest. I have come upon some subjects, theories and philosophic expressions many many times before I found any of these things made them attractive to me. Biting down upon the gristle of tradition, I have sometimes chewed until I dissolved into it, sometimes spit it out as unworthy of my meal, so they become 'leftovers'. | I think that it might be helpful if you could list a couple of |ideas that you've accepted and a couple that you've rejected and |explain why. This could keep our conversation from getting too general. I don't reject ideas. I set them aside as 'of unknown value' quite often, due to unavailable resource or lack of interest. Examples would include: phlogiston; Enochian magick; parapsychology/Rhine; Pure Land Buddhism; Presbyterianism; Mormanism; Judaism (some biggies, eh? :>). This doesn't mean that I don't find them intriguing enough to watch out for possible inclusion, only that I haven't found a way to seriously study and integrate these. The closest I come to rejecting ideas is in rejecting, for me, particular *interpretations* of ideas. Good examples include literal interpretations of most religious scripture, moralistic interpretations of mystical works, and most interpretations which stress the 'This is the One True Right and Only Way' kind of thing. As for 'acceptance' I don't really go that far in that direction either. I find the values I mention above lead me to engage these perspectives more and more often depending on how well they perform over time and how well they integrate within my life experiences. Good examples here are various ideas from Buddhism (especially 'anatman'), from Satanism (like the value of egotism and individuality) and Chaos Magick (the emphasis on flexibility and lack of adherence to doctrine or structure). |...If this stream gets beaten to death, I might bring one of the others |back out, or if tyagi thinks that one of them is particularly important, |we'll talk about it.] I like that approach. Thanks for participating in DISCUSSION. I value this greatly, sometimes more than the data. ;> tyagi nagasiva nagasiva@yronwode.com ___________________________ "A group of people came to al-Junayd and inquired, 'Where should we seek sustenance?' He answered, 'If you know where it is, go seek it there.' They said, 'But we _do_ ask God Most High.' He instructed, 'If you think that He is forgetting you, then remind Him.' They asked, 'Should we go home and then trust in God?' He stated, 'Testing is doubting.' They asked, 'Then what measure should we try?' And he replied, 'Abandonment of all measures.'" al-Risala al-Qushayriyya, tr. B.R. Schlegel, Berkeley 1992, 123 (=tr. Gramlich 19.18). --- If you wish to be sure I read your response to me, cc me via email. Thanks. Contribute to the Netmage's Consortium Newsgroup: alt.magick.tyagi DivWeb: telnet bill.math.uconn.edu 9393 ** ftp.portal.com/pub/ss/Usenet