Maybe in the base essence of the thoughtful choices as to our present and our projected future ... we have two base choices ... according to the argument here now.
1) Go with Religious tradition based upon the historic past, and generally only as interpreted back then, relying upon a very few "books" that are deemed inviolate as regards to the truth ...
Of course there are differing Religions with differing concepts about all of that, and they seem not to be able to agree, or even to agree to disagree, in too many cases, resulting in much conflict world wide. A conflict of differing hierarchies and their dogmas ... Or ...
2) Take the route of Science based upon research ongoing, always seeking "the next step" in a purely logical and rational methodology, dealing in pure facts that alone are considered truth.
This type of research then would seem to limit itself to only the common 5 objective senses that man considers "reliable" ... pure objectivity ... the idea that the individual ego is the epitome of evolutionary advancement ... and that the most logical and rational ego that can consistently compile the most facts along with having the ability to defend them, should be the "leader(s)" ...
A scientific hierarchy that is trusted without question by the mere population in general who have not been so well endowed with intellect and "position" within the hierarchy. Trusted leader(s) and the masses of followers just going along ...
Can "such" leaders really be trusted though? What might take place when one hierarchy comes to feel "threatened" by another, and takes the current research from a peaceful use to a weaponized use to control the feared or hated "other" ... Survival of the "fittest" ???
Where does "morality" come into play in all of this ... or does it ?
What about our "other" long history of Philosophy and it's various branches of inquiry into the differences between the noumenal and the phenomenal ?
Do we throw out epistemology and ontology ?? Completely disregard the history of metaphysical questioning just like you would religious inquiry ?
Should we completely reject INtuitive considerations in the pursuit of logical and rational reasoning only ?
Or ... could there be a Third Choice ???
3) Some kind of Balance, a generic spirituality that did take into consideration the potential possibility of a spiritual interconnection that transcends the egoic selfishness of man. ??? A panentheism maybe, rather than a theism. ???
Should we NOT have some consideration for individual inquiry, that cares about the entirety, a possible overarching continiuty to beginnings and endings, having a connection that could be involved with a transcendent loving as the higher truth we all surely seek in our hearts if not our minds ?
Jerry Kays, Jun 25, 2008, 11:12am EDT
(reprinted from: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977382432 )
No comments:
Post a Comment