From: Erin Noonan (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 19:14:50 BST
inexplicable dogma and uncertain faith are fine with but I find
dogma and faith concepts are not used in this way.
I put that Lila's Child annotation where Pirsig says
absolute had a poor conotation and using dynamic quality was better.
Well i think dogma and faith have poor conotations also.
I like your approach to mystery with 'inexplicable dogma' and
speterson's approach with uncertain faith.
But I am asking the question here again (it is a question not a statement)
which is better to change the way we view the words dogma and faith or
use different words to avoid miscommunication.
erin
>
>Scott makes some great points (especially in his general
>agreement with me ;)
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>I agree in general, but I think there is also a need for
>> dogma, but only
>> on the condition that it be inexplicable.
>
>"all men are created equal" is delighfully inexplicable in
>this way. There is dynamic quality in that it requires us
>to interact with it to create underatanding of it and let it
>shape our lives.
>
>
>Robert
>> Magliola's book
>> ("Derrida on the Mend") has a very interesting discussion
>> on how the
>> Church's "understanding" of the Trinity was carefully
>> drawn between the
>> two heresies that arise by attempting to find an
>> understandable notion
>> of the Trinity, modalism on the one hand (that the three
>> persons are
>> "aspects" of God), and polytheism on the other (that there
>> are three
>> Gods). The "truth" is that God is three and one, which of
>> course is
>> unthinkable.
>
>I understand it as a way of resolving the ideas of immanence
>(God's nearness) and transcendence (God's otherness). These
>also seem contradictory. Most people focus on transcendence
>resulting in the Supreme Being puppet master God that
>controls events from outside the world. Obviously such a
>concept results in all kinds of contradictions.
>
>For those that find a concept of God useful, Panentheism is
>becoming more popular all the time which allows for
>transcendence and immance with no "fuzzy math" (1+1+1=1).
>
>
>> That which we understand is
>> dead, while a
>> nice piece of mystery keeps it alive and dynamic.
>
>Nice!
>
>
>> On a different subject, I note that no one has so far
>> answered your
>> first post, on whether people here find the MOQ useful for
>> clearing up
>> moral questions. Given that most acrimony here arises from
>> differing
>> opinions on the moral issues of the day, it would appear
>> that it does not.
>
>I was afraid of that. Early in Lila, Pirsig seemed to say
>that it does, but I couldn't see how.
>
>
>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
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:52 GMT