Eric wrote:
[KMO]
<<
In terms of my interests, when you talk about acceptance of, believe
in, or commitment to a PROPOSITION, you are outside of the domain of
phaith.
In order to communicate one's phaith, one is likely to formulate
propositions, but when we start to take those words too seriously we
tread on the border of dogma and expose ourselves to it's demonstrated
risks.
>>
[Eric]
<<Richard: could you please make a comment here about the relationship
of this paragraph to your ideas of *clarity of purpose*?>>
I think KMO's position on "phaith" is outside the experience of most people. To me the point is whether you have consciously examined your faith-based positions to see if they are alignment with your purpose and values. Of course that implies that you have some idea what your purpose and values are, although this need not be intellectual. The main enlightenment of Level 3 is the realization that you CAN reprogram your faith-based positions. Here I agree with KMO, in that arguing for the Truth of a proposition (other than as a rhetorical device) militates against Level-3 consciousness.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
Free newsletter! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm