From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 21:59:23 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
If part of the purpose of this list is to discuss what Pirsig's books
suggest, I would say that he falls on the create a new language side (which
seems to be your side), since this is exactly what Persig did. He got all
of us thinking-type people, who killed God, the Buddha, and anything else
that poked its godhead within range of our analytical knives with all our
analysis, talking about spirituality again. Now that we can talk about it
again with one another, wouldn't it also be nice to be able to talk about it
with other spiritual people who don't speak Pirsig?
I meant my last posting to be my answer to your question. Retain the old
poetry and listen with new ears.
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