Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:52:25 +0100
From: Erik <anarchie-AT-buelinckx.net>
Subject: Re: [Christian Anarchists]


ow, this is a big one. Again i'm going to edit a lot of it, mainly because
i think i'm with you on parts of and more because i don't like long posts.
I'll try to stick to the recapitulation you made

At 10:09 -0400 25-10-1999, Unka Bart wrote:
...
>
>If I may paraphrase you, you seem to be making what I see as
>an artificial distinction between "humynism" and something
>else that humyns do or believe.
>
>It is artificial because you seem to be excluding
>"religion," and if there is anything that is uniquely
>"humyn," religion is that thing.
>
>I call "humynism" a propaganda term, *precisely* because it
>is a term used to separate one uniquely humyn activity from
>things that are not objectively separated.
>
>That is, dividing things into "humynism" and non-humynism
>things is impossible without using religion.  There is no
>field of endevor, social, political, or otherwise that
>humyns engage in that is not "humynistic" under the term.
>Even religion, since it is by, for and of humyns, is
>"humynism" in practice.

Anarchism can't exist without a State ? Atheism without a God ?


>
>Humynism is a term used by the priesthood of religion to
>artificially divide things and practices into "them and US,"
>and it has no objective meaning outside that context.
>
>>>And in Zen (remember the caveat), a central aim is to *realize* fully that
>>>there is no self.
>
>snippage happens around this point,
>
>> Generally i tend to like what i (fail to)
>>understand about Zen. Porblem is: my own unseriousness plays up too often.
>
>No, your failure to understand Zen is a fundamental one.  Zen is not something
>to be understood (or even discussed; but rather to be practiced.

Besieds the few (or many ?) who practice Zen without ever been in touch
with other Zenners how doe sthe big mass culd start practicing without
discussion ?

(I'll drop the understanding)

>
>>>This all boils down to the oft repeated wisdom, "Physican, heal thyself."
>>>How can spirituality originate/develop/be shared if not from within?  Can
>>>one slake the thirst of someone else from a dry well?
>>
>>You got me lost here. I (being on the -AT--list) tried to point out that there
>>is no need for a "system" like xtianity, bouddhism (zen ?), to become an
>>anarchist: just simple human behaviour (humanism and not Humanism) seems
>>enough, and because of those "sustems" where concocted by us mortals
>>reflect bits of this "humanism". Hence me not needing another set of rules
>>or searches or whatever to regard myself as an anarchist.
>
>Geez, Erik, watch out that you don't break something, convoluting yourself
>like
>that.  Drop the term "humanism" and your problems will go away,
>semantically, at
>least.

You should see me: i'm like one of those snake people in a freak show. ;-)

>
>>Simple put : why do people need to call themselves xtian anarchist or some
>>other xxx anarchist ?
>
>I reckon it must be because it *pleases* them to do so.
>
>Simple, neh?

No no no: i asked a simple question. I want defintely a big difficult
answer on this one. If i want simple answers i'll start asking dificult
questions.


>
>>>When one uses the term "humanism" to describe the search for spirituality,
>>>one should be conscious that one is using the propaganda language of a
>>>group with an agenda.
>>
>>Not me.
>
>Yes, you.  Not meaning that you *share* that agenda, or
>subscribe to it, but when you use it, you most definitely
>are *supporting* it.  The term has no objective meaning, it
>is purely a construct of the priesthood for their own venal
>purposes.

Same same for f.i. anarchism and atheism as mentioned above then ?

>
>The fact that it first came into use back in the renaissance
>changes that fact, not a whit.  See below:
>
>>>  That group is the priesthood of religion, and their
>>>agenda is to ensnare all humans, making them believe that "grace" can only
>>>be obtained from them, the priesthood.  They divide the world into their
>>>sthick (religion) and "humanism" (everything that is outside their
>>>particular variety of religion).
>
>>Full circle with the sprout : what is spirituality ?
>
>Indeed.  Excellent question, grasshopper ...errr, sprout.
>
>I would say that spirituality, as *I* use the term, means the product of
>the journey along "the path."  The product of a selfless life devoted to
>"right thought and action," the product of doing the right thing simply
>and for no other reason, than it *is* the RIGHT thing to do.
>
>What does it mean to you?

Spirituality for me is the place where i don't go because it nevered
occured to me i should go to such a place.

Erik

PS. Thanks