Star Wars movies as "Sacred Texts"

Nai_Elyob wrote:

Kyrin wrote: If every word could be interpreted any way we wanted we would have no common ground for communicating meaning.

Kyrin wrote: ...I just see it differently than you do and that’s ok...I see that as a good thing because for me, religion is the path to the dark side!

So which is it? You seem to be just as capable of deciding what something means to you, even when confronted with etymological derivations which undermine your main point.

To be fair to Kyrin, her first statement is talking about an exact definition of a word, whilst her second statement refers to people's opinions and personal interpretations and associations of that word.

Nai_Elyob wrote: I mean, you're an Apprentice, so you've already done the lessons from Joseph Campbell. How is it that we seem to have come to such a radically different conclusion of what he was saying about the nature of myth, religion, mysticism, and their interconnections?

Now you're on to something Ever watched a crime show where they're interviewing a group of witnesses? They all saw exactly the same crime and yet one person will tell you crime was committed by a black man, another will say it was a white man, one will say the getaway car was orange, whilst another will tell you it was green and that actually it was a van, not a car

Nai_Elyob wrote: That's why the word religion is derived the way that it is etymologically. A dictionary is just a socially accepted definition, it's not absolute truth - it's subjective. You don't go to the dictionary to find out what a word means, but rather to find out how it is used, generally, in your society. Hence why some words can have three or four definitions, sometimes even more than that. Deliberately cherry-picking the definition which suits your argument while rejecting real attempts to come to know what a word really means by deconstructing it and tracing its root languages doesn't come across as logical.

I see your point, but I would disagree with the statement that using the modern-day socially/culturally accepted meaning of a word is not logical. If you deconstruct every word and trace it back to its root language, it often ends up meaning something completely (or at least distinctly) different. If you were to deconstruct and trace the root of a word like 'rape' for example, you find it originates from Latin an really means 'to grab', however that is not really what a person is talking about, when they use it.

There's a task towards the end of the IP on this and I look forward to reading your take on it

Nai_Elyob wrote: Also, for the record "let me stop you right there" is a turn of phrase, not an actual statement of anything nefarious.

Again, I see your point here. And I know that you didn't mean it in that way but, to be fair to Kyrin, it does conjure up the image of someone interrupting another because they feel that they've heard everything they need to hear and rather retort than listen to the other's argument in its entirety.

As I say I know you didn't mean that way, I don't even know if Kyrin took it that way :laugh: but its wise to remember that we only have the written word here and so it can easily be misinterpreted.

Alexandre Orion wrote: Chacun de nous a sa manière d'aimer et de haïr, et cet amour, cette haine reflètent sa personnalité tout entière. Cependant le langage désigne ces états par les mêmes mots chez tous les hommes ; aussi n'a-t-il pu fixer que l'aspect objectif et impersonnel de l'amour, de la haine, et des mille sentiments qui agitent l'âme. (...) Mais de même qu'on pourra intercaler indéfiniment des points entre deux positions d'un mobile sans jamais combler l'espace parcouru, ainsi, par cela seul que nous parlons, par cela seul que nous associons des idées les unes aux autres et que ces idées se juxtaposent au lieu de se pénétrer, nous échouons à traduire entièrement ce que notre âme ressent : la pensée demeure incommensurable avec le langage.

~ Henri Bergson, Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience, P.U.F., 1946, pp. 123-124

It seems that Brick has beat me to the punch in this reply. Thank you Brick for your elegant reply! I agree with what Brick has said so I will add just a few further comments here.

Nai_Elyob wrote: So which is it? You seem to be just as capable of deciding what something means to you, even when confronted with etymological derivations which undermine your main point. I mean, you're an Apprentice, so you've already done the lessons from Joseph Campbell. How is it that we seem to have come to such a radically different conclusion of what he was saying about the nature of myth, religion, mysticism, and their interconnections?

You make my very point with this comment. You have fallen into the consummate error of assuming that everyone studying Campbell will come to the same conclusions and thus all be in accordance. This is the very act of worship of an individual or doctrine that I am warning against. Who said we had to agree on what Campbell is saying?

In fact I disagree with Campbell on many points, this just being one of them. This is the very difference between “religion” and “spirituality” for me. Religion being a place where everyone has to come to the same conclusions on a position or believe the same things or be in agreement. In contrast spirituality is a position where disagreement and independent exploration and differing conclusions is the norm. This is not a bad thing however. It is in our differences that we need to find commonality, not in a cookie cutter devotion to a specific paradigm.

Religion relegates the individual to one specific set of beliefs, writings and pantheon. This produces an environment where we put this religion on a pedestal above all others. In turn this leads to radicalization and often times oppression, violence, genocide, misogyny and misandry. We need to realize that this idea that any one religion is better than another is an illusion. That in fact the entirety of all mythology and all pantheons and all belief systems can be accepted as the most complete narrative of this reality and the ensuing human condition we experience. This destroys the walls of “religion” and builds an environment of unity and inclusion.

This is the difference I see and it is a difference defined simply by the strictest definition of the terms religion and spirituality. And yes there is some overlap in the two, some of which might be belief, reflection, a sense of awe, even comfort. But the differences are stark. Religion is about specific practice, what is right and wrong, what is true and false. Spirituality on the other hand is about finding meaning, feeling connected, learning how to live in harmony. I think that we as a species need to shed the dogma and embrace the journey. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Nai_Elyob wrote: Also, for the record "let me stop you right there" is a turn of phrase, not an actual statement of anything nefarious.

Are you sure? Cuz I thought you were being quite nefarious… lol… jk