tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post113182522627340180..comments2023-06-30T07:19:03.441-07:00Comments on The Golden Ass: Language and ReligionJason Hesiakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-1149149898547963472006-06-01T01:18:00.000-07:002006-06-01T01:18:00.000-07:00Ancient Clown,This might sound like a dumb and obv...Ancient Clown,<BR/><BR/>This might sound like a dumb and obvious question, but how many religous dudes do you know who claim not to be spiritual? As a mirror, therefore, there aren't any "just religous" folks running around. So why bother with the statement that, "otherwise there would just be a bunch of spiritual dudes running around"? When I mentioned in my blog the idea of finding religion, but not God, I don't think this was what I meant. You seem to me to be making a point that is either arbitrary or from a different source.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-1147592446743452102006-05-14T00:40:00.000-07:002006-05-14T00:40:00.000-07:00I've always said religions were created by the guy...I've always said religions were created by the guys who didn't understand what the spiritual dudes were talking about...otherwise we'd just have a whole bunch of spiritual dudes walking around.<BR/>Hearing and listening are not the same thing. Listening implies action. <BR/>My defintion of <B>'ORIGINAL SIN'</B> is "Not Listening".<BR/>your humble servant,<BR/>Ancient Clownancient clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08065576544187661965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-1137235001715742092006-01-14T02:36:00.000-08:002006-01-14T02:36:00.000-08:00Concerning hierarchy - the whole point of what I w...Concerning hierarchy - the whole point of what I was saying is that God is king. I pray often for the coming of the "kingdom of God". The difference between what you are seeing, which I think is the Truth, and not-that, is the difference between the idea of the Pharoh ACTUALLY BEING the "image of God" on earth, recieving special revelation from Rah, and ALL OF US ACTUALLY BEING the "image of God" here on earth. This is why God din't want to give Isreal a king when they first requested it. When we live by our own systems, the necessary precondition is our own conception of ourselves as holding some kingship. The nature and range of that kingship depends upon the nature and range of the system.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-1137234641475843022006-01-14T02:30:00.000-08:002006-01-14T02:30:00.000-08:00Tom, I meant to add one more thing. The fact that...Tom, <BR/><BR/>I meant to add one more thing. The fact that one of the earliest stories of the story of "God's people" (starting with Abraham) is a story of the almost-sacrafice of his son seems rather clearly to indicate some relation to previously existing ritual sacrafices practiced by just about ALL ancient people's (including, probably, Abraham and his entourage before this particular story). To find ANY ancient peoples who did not practice some form of ritual, probably even specifically ritual SACRAFICE, would be quite the challenge. Abraham's model, or precursor, probably came from the Babylonians, or the "land of Ur" from which he came. There are other stories of sacrafice in the Bible even before this one involving Abraham. See Cain and Abel, for example. Thanks again.<BR/><BR/>JasonJason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-1137234245918675332006-01-14T02:24:00.000-08:002006-01-14T02:24:00.000-08:00Tom,Thank you for reading my blog. That in itself...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for reading my blog. That in itself is more than I usually expect from most people, to be honest. I hope it wasn't too long ago that you posted this commnet. I haven't been keeping up much with my blog site lately.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I wanted to respond to your comment. I'd be curious to hear more of what moves you to be interested in the first place in the idea of the ancient Hebrews having no religion. I mean, after I wrote this blog, I became afraid that I had possibly given an idea that I didn't really intend, one that is difficult for me to put into words. <BR/><BR/>I, for one, am a "Christian". I am not against ritual (especially, I practice the ritual of communion sometimes), nor going to church. The rituals that the Hebrews DID eventually practice came out of STORIES of God's relation with us. The rituals that I practiced came out of that lineage of stories. I consider myself a part of that story, and a part of a community of people who are COMMITTED to following God as best they know and are able and willing.<BR/><BR/>To clarify, what I took a stand against in this blog was the arbitrary binding that we ourselves initiate and hold to as if our lives depended on it. A closed system of self-referencing; a system handed down to us primarily by the Romans (rather than the Hebrews or Christ himself), which even the church seems to have adopted as its own in many ways. At the very least, many in the church don't seem to know the difference between the system they've adopted and any other "options", if that could be the correct word for what it is that does hold the world together (that being God Himself, the Rock, the Word).<BR/><BR/>I know that many "religous" people in general, and especially my fellow "Christians", like to "argue" about these things while being less than well-educated on the matters at hand. That is understandable, since the "matter at hand" (the Prime Substance, if you will, or even history, the two of which of course, go together) is rather difficult to sort through. I mean, my life is difficult enough to understand. <BR/><BR/>I would like to clarify something else, however. When I say I "practice rituals", I don't mean that those rituals are what "bind" me to the One that holds the world together however He sees "fit". When I say I practice ritual, I think of a few things that help me to understand what ritual is. I think of the Neoplatonic doctrine of emmanation. Ritual is a likeness of physis. Ritual comes out of belief in the same way that physis comes out of "The One". And if my "belief" is in "The Almighty" (One), then my ritual is almost no different whatsoever from Plotinus's immanence. <BR/><BR/>Another thing I think of when I think of ritual is what it means to DWELL on earth. Earlier tonight I read read "Building, Dwelling, Thinking", by Martin Heiddegher. I am an Architect, so I think about this a lot. It's been said my many that Architecture is human ritual taking form. Ritual places us, it orients us. It's like a pattern, like the sun rising every day. I mean, the Aztec's used to line up in the THOUSANDS - EVERY DAY, to have their head chopped off to assure themselves that the sun god wasn't too angry at them not to send the Light of the world out again the next day. A human's gaze upon each next moment is like Euridyce's gaze upon Orpheus just before he looks back at her. We can't look back, but to practice a ritual does not mean that we look back.<BR/><BR/>To keep our eyes in the front of our head, where God put them, to accept the human limits of our vision the way God ordered it, and to seek "after" He who made us this way, is not to look back upon the enclosure of Plato's cave. Because God is the Sun. But He is also the Rock upon which we stand - and take a step foward.<BR/><BR/>Our own systems of bidning ourselves to the world, to physical objects, to our perceptions or even worse, our own systems of binding language to reality (how absurd!) - they are not solid ground. That's what I was trying to say. <BR/><BR/>But I do believe that there IS a solid ground. It's "immanence" here in this place looks SOMEWHAT like what most people think of as "religion", maybe even one PARTICULAR "religion". But only somewhat, really, especially in America (I, for example, am currently reading "The American Religion", by Harold Bloom, which argues that most Americans who claim to be Christian are really more some uniquely American combination of Gnosticism (primarily), Orphism and Enthusiasm - to me he seems to be pretty much right on the money).Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-1136885303804571372006-01-10T01:28:00.000-08:002006-01-10T01:28:00.000-08:00I found your blog while checking to see who else l...I found your blog while checking to see who else listed Discreet Charm of the Bourgoisie among their favorite movies. There are only three of us on all of blogspot. I love what you said about the ancient Hebrews having no religion -- something I was discussing just recently with my brother, who is a fairly serious amateur scholar of these things. Until the laws laid down for the construction of the ark, and the dietary codes, and the rules for ethical behavior, which happened during the wanderings in the desert, many many generations of Hebrews were held together by a belief in a common ancestor, Abraham (through Joseph), and by Abraham's belief in single God. And that was it--no ritual, no hierarchy, nothing we would call a religion, as you so convincingly stated. <BR/><BR/>The odd things is, I haven't seen Discreet Charm for twenty years, maybe longer. I have no idea whether or not it would still hold up for me. I just know that in college it was a universe I kept wanting to go back to and never forgot. <BR/><BR/>I've just started my blog tonight, just dipping into this new universe. <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>TomTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07575451333006756797noreply@blogger.com