Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Talk:A Course in Miracles

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The entry for A Course in Miracles is opinionated and ill informed. I offered an edit and it was rolled back. This leaves the distinct impression that this wiki is in fact not open to wiki principles but is a mouthpiece for personal points of view. If rational is taken to mean anti-anything-it-doesn't-understand, then it expresses even less sense that perfect logic based on false principles. The principle of validating a shaky identification by opposition is used the world over as the way to shift the focus onto what is seen to be wrong with the 'other'. It is this sort of mentality that A Course in Miracles exposes - not to a capacity to use this information for more subtle defence mechanisms - but in order to be free of it! A Course in Miracles states that it is one form of a universal course - and that the only thing that makes it of service is the recognition in the reader of it offering a way that THEY find helpful. It does not propose a universal theology - nor advise one as necessary. It has no cultic status excepting in the minds of those who see enemies everywhere. It is like a Bible without a church - in the sense of an external organisation or hierarchy. The 'church' of A Course in Miracles is one's relationships with each and all - as a basis of a healed relationship oneself.

But whatever serves the reconnecting of our mind with our heart is part of that same resource - even if it as apparently banal. It is the purpose that dictates the meaning. Without grounding in the true values of the heart, our mind - our ration sense - is disconnected and disconnecting from that which is its fundamental function or ground. This is the same as saying a mind can blind itself and fight against its own good in the conviction that it is defending itself against threat - and all because of holding the map upside down at the outset.

Though the edit I offered used bits of the original it would be better to start fresh. If an open mind is to be allowed to consider, there needs to be a way to present information in such a way as to respect that mind's capacity to discern. I have discerned this site editor to be biased so as to seek to persuade or manipulate the attention of the other. This may pass as rationality to their own thinking - but is no disguise or camouflage to anyone honest enough to have put such a mentality behind them.

If rationality is merely a tool or weapon in winning war - then war is all it will bring you - in one or another form of struggle and frustration.

I am open to the truths that religionists often pretend to, but I am also desiring to open the expressions of truth to new ways of articulation. A merely polarised attitude is simply a refusal to communicate. Life IS communication - not just of information but the process of experiencing, itself. The capacity to block the flow and make a local distortion field is something we can all realise we do. Ultimately - honestly - there is no such capacity - but while it seems meaningful to the mind - it is held onto as if it is one's very life! — Unsigned, by: Binra / talk / contribs

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 16:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As the one who did the rolling back, I should pipe up here... I know very little about A Course in Miracles, other than having some previous acquaintances who used it as a basis for a study group. I realize this is not a fair way to characterize the Course, but those folks were into things like crystals and unicorns and psychic readings. They also showed a tinge of authoritarianism that made me want to keep some distance.
While I sympathize with the view that "rationalists" can seem a little too focused on reducing all phenomena to materialistic terms, at the same time I have come to trust the skepticism of the mob here, taken as a moving average. I've got not much more to add, but I look forward to reading further discussion here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and p.s.: Most communication is meant "so as to seek to persuade or manipulate the attention of the other" and quite rightly so. Even when it comes wrapped as plain unadorned facts, communication is meant to make a difference. We are not dispassionate disembodied spectral intelligences, but messy juicy meaty beings with various mental and emotional aspects. In an ideal situation, heart and mind and sinews all play together in concerted harmony. On that, I hope you will find simple agreement coming from yours truly, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)