I appreciate people who I tend to disagree with asking each other great questions and being intellectually curious. Much better too hear your views directly from you, not mediated by mass media that seeks to rip us apart. I think I agree with Michael Thomas with his description of the problem with modernity and with the broad strokes of the proposed solution. It's clear that he's a deep thinker who takes this seriously.
What I personally can't get past is the (ironically) authoritarian approach to assuming you have a monopoly on the definition of what "good and beautiful" is--namely the opinion of a religious tradition that has been murderously certain of objectively wrong facts before (just ask Galileo). And based on that definition, the implication that not everyone gets a parcel in this system as a result (you have to be a very specifically constituted family where men dominate, that of course buys into your metaphor for understanding "God," and by the way where no man wears a dress, because wow that is just so important to prevent). I assume that these parcels being available to us because of European genocide of native people is OK because they didn't believe in the book.
But, having got that off my chest, I enjoyed the perspective and there's lots to think about here. Thank you both.
I appreciate people who I tend to disagree with asking each other great questions and being intellectually curious. Much better too hear your views directly from you, not mediated by mass media that seeks to rip us apart. I think I agree with Michael Thomas with his description of the problem with modernity and with the broad strokes of the proposed solution. It's clear that he's a deep thinker who takes this seriously.
What I personally can't get past is the (ironically) authoritarian approach to assuming you have a monopoly on the definition of what "good and beautiful" is--namely the opinion of a religious tradition that has been murderously certain of objectively wrong facts before (just ask Galileo). And based on that definition, the implication that not everyone gets a parcel in this system as a result (you have to be a very specifically constituted family where men dominate, that of course buys into your metaphor for understanding "God," and by the way where no man wears a dress, because wow that is just so important to prevent). I assume that these parcels being available to us because of European genocide of native people is OK because they didn't believe in the book.
But, having got that off my chest, I enjoyed the perspective and there's lots to think about here. Thank you both.