Dear Platt, Bo and Andrea,
Andrea wrote 4/2 10:48 +0100:
'"Spirit" could be a good metaphor for DQ'.
Platt 4/2 8:48 -0500 quoted Pirsig (in a letter to Jason Nelson
as reported by him 26/4/99):
'those aspects of religion which could be considered "dynamic
right dharma" are at a higher level than intellectual truths,
including the truths of the Metaphysics of Quality itself. The
trouble is that religion always also means a set of static
intellectual truths and a static social organization containing a
lot of static biological people who own a lot of static inorganic
property. These static patterns are so strong that the dynamic
right dharma is all but lost'.
I'd like to add some other quotes to the collection:
>From myself 9/6 20:54 +0100 in the 'Migration toward Dynamic
Quality'-thread:
'The main competitor of a MOQ on the meta-level is not SOM but
religion. ... Metaphysicists are a minuscule group of people
compared to religious professionals and the same is true of their
followers (scientists versus religious people). Religion (with
its Latin root re-ligare, to reconnect) can be defined as the
essentially human pursuit of re-experiencing DQ. Some of it
crystallizes in social and intellectual patterns of course, and
those with a vested interest in the output of former prophets
will deny the possibility of new DQ. Religion as a whole however
has a good claim to being the field of human activity that is
most open to incorporating DQ when it turns up. As such it has a
longer standing than science, and -after Kuhn showed the
interdependence of science and social patterns- it is in my
opinion in no way inferior. Religion needs a God-concept to
communicate about religious experience. ... For me too DQ quacks
like a God-duck.'
I'll add immediately (before Platt objects) that the main
competitor of Religion (as human activity open to DQ) is Art.
Also from myself 20/6 10:29 +0100 starting the 'Religion/God ~
MoQ/DQ'-thread (following up on the 'Migration toward Dynamic
Quality'-thread:
'Religion is not the static patterns associated with it. They are
only the result of DQ experienced in the past. Once experienced
DQ sometimes latches and creates a new static pattern of value.
Even if it doesn't latch, the platform that was used for jumping
gets the credit. Different religions are like different platforms
humanity uses for jumping to the moon. That which connects and
defines them is the act of jumping, the pursuit. In another often
used metaphor: religion is the climbing of a mountain, not the
different paths we follow to the top. (I like the moon-jumping
metaphor better, though, because of the implied unreachability of
the goal.)
... [Matt wrote:] "what each of these religions is pointing at
(the moon, as it goes) or trying to experience, well, that may be
DQ." I read that as support of my definition...
Matt ... wrote further:
"Where I stand now, I guess, would be that it doesn't matter if
God exists or not. ... because the Western conception of God is
always as a separate being alongside the universe. ... I ... cut
him out. My life doesn't change a bit."
Marco... apparently agreed on 17/6 12:49 +0200:
"Now call it God, if you want. It doesn't change a lot."
[They] are right. It doesn't change anything at all on the
rational level of knowledge to equate DQ and God. (See John's
posting of 15/6 15:38 +1000 or
members.ams.chello.nl/f.visser3/wilber/science.html for an
explanation of Wilber's levels of knowledge.) It diminishes both
DQ and God to equate and define them. To be more precise: it
takes them down to the rational level of knowledge, depriving the
spiritual level of a focal point for communication about
meta-level experience.
I propose not to equate them, therefore. Just leave
them -undefined- at the spiritual level of knowledge, beautiful
moons to jump at. I just want to point out the analogy of
religion pointing at God and a MoQ pointing at DQ. The act of
jumping and trying to build up the platform we're jumping from is
the same.'
Finally a quote from Pirsig again, from chapter 30 of 'Lila' (p.
432 of my Bantam paperback edition):
'He thought some more about Lila's insanity and how it was
related to religious mysticism and how both were integrated into
reason by the Metaphysics of Quality. He thought about bow once
this integration occurs and Dynamic Quality is identified with
religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to
what Dynamic Quality is. A lot of this religious mysticism is
just low-grade "yelping about God" of course, but if you search
for the sources of it and don't take the yelps too literally a
lot of interesting things turn up.'
Concluding: the best type of religion to search for 'aspects at a
higher level than intellectual truths' would be religious
mysticism after you have peeled off 'yelps about God'. You need
concepts like 'God' or 'spirit' to communicate with others about
what's left, but these concepts may not refer to religious dogmas
or theology ('a set of static intellectual truths') if you do so,
otherwise they kill those 'aspects at a higher level than
intellectual truths'. They should be treated as metaphors only.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:01:50 BST