Since the metaphysical concept of quality is intrinsically i8mpossible to
treach, then surely ANY thing pertaining to its realisation, or at least
understanding in the REAL world (the thing that is created by the very same
process of quality) This is why I think that this discussion group is good,
the people in it have obvious intellect, believe in the most part in MoQ,
and as such have views that appear far more objective than most, and this is
what the MoQ can enable us to do. Studying the MoQ in itself and without
trying to somehow be able to create a better environment for us to live is
absurd, and not very high quality. The concept of studying the MoQ and
nothing pertaining to its implications in the environment is rather static
quality, almost absurd as Pirsig explained it cant ever be completely
understood. What Pirsig has given us is a vehicle on which to set out on
another journey, and one which the earth desperately needs (remember that
the leading scientists in the world give the ecosystem no longer than 50
years at currrent rates of consumpttion, and to change our consumption we
need a pardigm shift in our collective ideals, religion, economics,
conventional politics - all well and good, theyve helped us in unthinkiable
ways but they have also created this situation that we face, of which the
MoQ is a vehicle that may be vitally important if humanity wishes to
survive). This is why so many 'obscure' discussions are taking place, the
intrinsic quality in them, we know that these things NEED discussing, and
this forum offers levels of knowledge that I have not found at any other
site. Applying the MoQ, even in its most rudimentary form, to ALL areas of
society is surely something that should be applauded, not something that as
people are saying, should be left to another discussion group. Ask yourself
what quality will be achieved by merely discussing the MoQ, its real
strength lies in its societal implications, dealilng with ALL manner of
things and allowing a different perception to the things that we see around
us. Offering something other than the mass produced beliefs of present. It
(the MoQ) can I am certain make a fundamental shift in our direction, for
the better, possible - but whilst it is purely theoretical what is its
benefit? Without being able to apply the concept of quality to the things
happening around us then the MoQ fails as it provides a framework but no
windows. If the concept of quality is indeed the 'driving force' then this
is surely our next step - application, without application it has as much
value as any half bit philosophical idea, and the MoQ is FAR more important
than that.
>From: Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD God and the MoQ
>Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:29:06 -0500
>
>Note to all: there's a hidden section at the end that has nothing to do
>with
>God, but with the plight of this discussion group. If you find it you get
>a
>prize!
>
>Now, onto God.
>
>Wim, as you have probably have learned "Ask and you shall receive":
>
>(Not promptly, though, because my computer completely died three days ago
>when
>I first began this e-mail)
>
> >
> > Could you tell me more about what you have "studied and thought ...
>about the
> > subject" until now and about your "opinions and arguments about it"
>(and/or
> > refer back to your unfruitful attempts to discuss the subject on this
>list)?
>
>
>Well, the "studied" and "thought" parts are quite long and different with a
>few
>points of intersection.
>
>Since the question is biographical, I figure I should start biographically.
> I
>grew up as a Methodist. I never questioned. Never thought much about it
>in
>general (nothing I can remember, at least). It wasn't until I was 14, when
>I
>reached the High School Sunday School class, that I began to think and
>question. The class was taught by a Reformed Jew. He had grown up
>Southern
>Baptist, broke away, reformed to Judaism, and picked up a PhD in
>philosophy.
>You might be wondering at this point how a Reformed Jew PhD-holder got to
>be
>teaching backass, smalltown Methodist Sunday School class. I actually
>don't
>know how. To this day I think its really wierd how those circumstances
>must
>have come to be. But I think the reason why is that he didn't indoctrinate
>any
>specific parts of Christianity. (As a side note, I'm pretty sure almost
>all
>education up to age 14 is indoctrination. Unfortunately, most of it after
>that
>age is indocrination, too.) He taught us how to think for ourselves and
>how to
>defend our Christianity. In my case, I eventually became an atheist. But
>I
>still attended the class. I still attended church services. It was
>because of
>the community and the ideas. It was because our minister and my teacher
>were
>both exceptional. When I was asked to be on a Church Committee as a Youth
>Representative, I approached the head of the board and asked if my atheism
>would be a problem. He said it wouldn't. He said I was chosen because I
>best
>knew what the youths were thinking and what they needed. When all three of
>them left my interest in attending church fell greatly because the
>replacements
>had nothing to teach (or so I felt).
>
>The POINT of all this is that I was an atheist, but with a very high level
>of
>respect for religion. I like most religions. Most people I get along with
>best are very religious. The people I get along with the least are
>hardcore,
>antagonistic atheists who think religion is destroying the world.
>
>The other point is that my early philosophical meanderings concerned God,
>religion, and spirituality in general. I have way too many books that I
>haven't read thoroughly concerning the subject. And way, way too many of
>them
>have Atheism (or any of its allusions) in the title. Most of them I find
>boring. Only one I find really useful and that's because it's concise and
>to
>the point and makes no illusions about what it's doing (The Atheist
>Debater's
>Handbook). The studies I enjoy the most about the subject are not
>philosophological criticisms of God, but actual philosopers creating
>something. Namely people like Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume,
>Locke,
>Berkeley, Kant, Kiekegaard, Nietzsche--the list is extensive of real
>philosophers who have had an opinion about God. And they are almost
>universally and infinitely more interesting to read than anything written
>in
>the last 50 years, possibly in the last 100.
>
>The most engimatic of those listed, to me, is Nietzsche. An amazing
>philosopher. A real asshole sometimes and (I would say) wrong about a lot
>of
>stuff, but I admire his genius and the insights he had and the biographical
>story surrounding all of it.
>
>The two I admire the most are Spinoza and Kierkegaard. Both had
>inspirational
>personal lives (Spinoza worked for a living while writing on the side and
>Kierkegaard was throughly reviled during his lifetime, but rejoiced in
>death).
>But even more, I think both offered the two greatest philosophies in favor
>of
>God. Spinoza was a pantheist and Kierkegaard believed in the Absurdity of
>Faith, that one should believe in God because (not in spite of) of the
>absurdity
>in believing in God. Mind you, I'm not a scholar on either of these two
>gentleman, but I think the gist is right.
>
>As a last note, I think Spinoza/pantheism offers the greatest connection to
>Pirsig. Pantheism is just as "absurd" as "Quality=reality". Both equate
>reality to something that is typically thought of as seperate from reality
>or
>just a part of reality. For adding an "extra" spiritual dimension, I think
>pantheism is the best point of entry for Western religions. Of course,
>pantheism isn't very Western.
>
>Oh, I was about to sign off, but here's why I don't like disscussing the
>philosophy of religion (a horrible upstart branch): the terms of discussion
>are
>completely and understandably blurred. Are we using Reason? Are we using
>Faith? When is it okay to use Reason? How about Faith? I became
>frustrated
>earlier because it all seemed cyclical. No boundaries are placed. I think
>the
>discussion of politics in this forum suffered from the same thing. No
>platform, no place to plant your feet and gain solid footing. That's what
>the
>MoQ does. It gives a platform. Afterwards one can disagree with the
>platform,
>but it had better be for very explicit and carefully argued reasons. And I
>think that's why there has been some disgruntlement around here lately.
>Cries
>of "That has nothing to do with the MoQ!" and "Yeah, good argument about
>*suchandsuch*, now what the hell does it have to do with the MoQ!" Some
>feel
>as though others are getting off track. Well, what is the track? Bo
>Skutvik
>has said that "this site looking more and more like other Internet general
>dicussions with a “quality” thrown in for appearances sake." I almost
>completely agree. It does look sloppy from time to time.
>
>The track and platform we need is, quite obviously, the MoQ. Discussions
>should include interpretations of the platform, extensions of the platform,
>and
>why particular parts of the platform are a load of crap. Everything should
>be
>about the platform. As to what should be extensions of the platform, since
>the
>MoQ is a general description of everything, everything is an extension of
>the
>MoQ. That makes God and politics and the death penalty all viable topics
>of
>discussion, but only in relation to the MoQ. It's gotten sloppy and is
>looking
>"like other Internet general discussions" because people differ on points
>of
>interpretation of the platform. That's fine. But those differing points
>need
>to be hammered out. If you think the entire platform is a load of
>donkey-doo,
>then hammer out what the oh-so-horrible implications of donkey-doo are.
>Don't
>go off onto a tangent that will distract from the platform.
>
>We need a place to put our feet. Something in common. Hmm, let's see if
>the
>name of the Discussion group helps: MD. That stands for ... oh, MoQ
>Discussion. That should help someone.
>
>Ran out of gas,
>
>Matt
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:21 BST