Replying to LO27914 --
Hello At and greetings to you too,
I dunno if you're asking for an answer to your question, that it is a
rhetorical statement, or a bit of both.... And sacred, holy is a bit of
both, i'm scared to say. If holy is "whole-like", i like whole-like, than
everything (= the whole) is sacred. If some things are sacred and some
are not, than nothing is whole-ly. So sacreligion is a paradox. When i say
"This is sacred" i also say that something else is "not sacred". But
something sacred is perceived as "whole" and if something is "whole"
(again) there can be nothing else.
I would suggest that everybody has the ability to perceive, to experience,
to know, to feel wholeness, wholyness, unity at some points in life or
development. And i sure would grant everybody this feeling. Suddenly the
"wholeness nerves" (a bundle of nerves can be a mess, so this would be the
wholeness mess) are triggered and one is flooded by the experience, the
knowledge, the balance, &c of holithy, healthy. Please make me whole
again. It might be triggered by a sound, a color, an idea, a feeling, a
situation, a person, a poem, a night-out-on-sea, a dream, a vision &c and
it might even be invoked by dancing, loving, alcohol drinking, skiing down
hill or meditation.
However, but, mind you, wait, the capability of this experience, this
feeling, this enactment might be used to create, enforce, sustain groups
of people. Maybe one can persuade others that some things feel (= are)
more whole-ly than others think they are and use this sacred thing, this
wholy* feeling to divided people. So things then will become sacred not
because they are - or are peceivred* as sacred - , but because they serve
a purpose: division, apartheid, us and them. We are common people unless
divided by two sacristies, two wholes, two religions. What is the purpose
of life it there is only one religion? one truth? One Way?. On the one
hand life is sacred - Thou shall not kill - and on the other hand life
itself needs to kill others who are not sacred (presumably because these
othurs* do not see thou as sacred, which might make sense to these
othures): factor T (tragedy). The sense of wholeness is being misused for
Apartheid of every kind.
Evolutionary speaking, no-thing is sacred but evolving itself and the
feeling of sacredness supports evolution. Because, let's face it, the
issue of sacredness leads to a lot of fighting, competition and
innovation; death and destruction might be a consequence of creativity.
Perhaps this moderated list would not have existed if we had all settled
for one sacred life! Imagine a sacred people, living in a holy land at
peace with themselves and their neighbours and teachning and learning
others to live the same way..... A land of milk and honey, a
"luilekkerland", a paradise. No improvement would come from that had they
succeeded. Just because peoples commit unsacred acts in the name of
sacrity do we improve, do we evolve. What would you rather have: no
LO-list and no Apartheid or Apartheid and this LO-list? What - if anything
- am i doing on this list?
The problem is that sacredness brings with it also undiscussablilty of
sacredness. Part of the deal: if it is sacred, do not discuss it. You
should avert your eyes before the holiest of holiest, some holy places are
taboo for what other group you do not belong to. Somehow people - and i
think you also seem to imply this in your closing remarks - might have
learned that talking about sacredness takes away the sacredness, as it it
becomes unhealthy, unholy. And it does. Because a feeling and talking
about a feeling are two different things. This is part of the paradoxical,
self referential nature of the game of life. There is only one sacred
rule: "This is not a game" (if it were, who would gain from the play?).
Well, guess this wasn't an answer either, so it must have been a
rethorical question after all,
take care,
Jan
AM de Lange wrote:
> Dear Organlearners,
>
> Greetings to all of you.
>
> First a note on the language. The word sacred comes from the Latin "sacro"
> which means holy. The Greek word for holy is "hagios". The word holy
> itself comes from the Saxon "haelig". It meant "whole-like". English is
> not my mother tongue so that I struggle to learn its intricacies. It
> seems that holy is used when the "whole-like" of something is innate to
> it. But it seems that sacred is used when something is reserved by some
> definite act for a "whole-like" purpose. Thus both have to do with
> wholeness. It is for me almost as if holy has to do with the "monadicity"
> aspect and sacred with the associativity aspect of wholeness.
>
> Perhaps some of you would not believe it, but for many of my people
> apartheid was as sacred as the Bible. How did apartheid become sacred? Why
> is the Bible sacred for some people as are the Koran or Veda for other
> people?
> snip
> I have touched upon many contentious topics specifically to honour the
> wholeness in my understanding of how things become sacred. What I wrote
> may easily become sacrilege to fellow learners. I did not intended any
> sacrilege and I beg forgiveness where it did happened. My essay is not
> sacred and therefore ought not to cause sacrilege. It is merely
> information with which I try to encourage your own learning. Your learning
> is sacred to me.
>
> With care and best wishes
-- With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,Jan Lelie
LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+31) (0)70 3243475 or GSM (car): (+31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl info@mindatwork.nl
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.