From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 23:08:55 GMT
Dear Sam,
You wrote 4/11 12:07 -0000:
'E-mail hovers uneasily between vocal conversation and written
correspondence - I'm acting (most of the time) in the mode of the former,
you're operating (largely) in the latter mode.'
I'd say: vocal conversation AND e-mail AND written correspondence can be
used for superficial exchange or for thorough discussion. I do indeed
prefer thorough discussion, especially on a 'MoQ Discussion list'. For me
the most efficient way to reach clarity is to think before I write, to
'reflect' 'myself' rather than use replies of others to 'reflect me'.
Writing is for me more a way of clarifying my own thought than a way of
eliciting replies. I don't hope for more than general evaluations of the
quality of my thoughts and a few more detailed replies to feed my thoughts.
Not too much replies please, because if I have to read and to answer too
much, I don't have time for creative thinking anymore.
In short, I gladly grant you what you ask: 'the freedom to pick and choose
which elements to respond to'.
You wrote:
'astrology ... is intellectually disreputable'
Isn't letting your behavior (not talking about astrology) being guided by
'reputation' a typically SOCIAL pattern of values...? Some reasoning would
show that using astrological typology (as a way of analyzing human behavior,
like DQ/sq is used to analyze experience) is something quite different from
'believing' that planetary movements are causally related with human
behavior (a belief wrongly attributed to all astrology). 'Synchronical'
relations between the two don't imply more than that the patterns we
recognize in relative positions and movements of planets, sun and moon can
be used as a symbolic language to describe patterns in human behavior. The
hypothesis that the specific pattern of planetary positions at birth defines
someone's character (the pattern recognizable in his/her behavior) during
lifetime doesn't need to be more true than the hypothesis that this
character is just a result of chance to be a better starting point for
discussing, comprehending and changing behavior that is otherwise beyond
conscious control.
You wrote:
'I don't think astrology is much help in pursuing fourth level DQ (whereas
Christianity is), I think it only functions -if it functions at all- on the
third level.'
Astrology as I use it functions as a way to give the 4th level (conscious
activity) a better hold on the 3rd level (unconscious behavior).
Christianity is for me a type of narrative which I can use (and which I can
use better than any other type, because I grew up with it) to give my life
and my experience Meaning. Meaning is the best pointer I have to Dynamic
Quality beyond the 4th level, because I have little feeling for Beauty
(which may be a better pointer to the moon for others).
I agree with your 'campaign (understanding "intellectual" as "to do with
reason")' if understood as a campaign to better understand the 4th level.
'Individuation' may be a side-effect of transcending the 3th level and
'integration of all four faculties into a harmonious whole' may be one of
our goals at the 4th level. To the extent that this suggests an opposition
between collective/social/3th level with solitary units/individual/4th
level, I don't think it is a helpful approach to understanding, defining and
naming the 4th level, however.
Defining the 4th level (and other levels) as (or even by) a 'scale of
values' (e.g. eudaimonic values) is not helpful either, I think. 'Value' in
'scale of values' is -as I understand it- a typical SOM-concept: it is
attributed by a subject to an object. Attributing a specific value to
something (in order to define its 'level') will always be highly arbitrary
and lead to endless discussion.
The only valid 'scale of values' in (my dialect of) MoQish is that of
'stability' and 'versatility' (or synonyms) according to me. These 'values'
are directly related to the 'degree of being patterned' of our experience.
This 'scale of values' is applicable to all patterns of values at all
levels, which can best not be distinguished by 'types of values' forming
these patterns, but by 'types of latching/maintaining' of the
'patternedness'.
Prophetical 'articulation of correct worship' (your formulation) as another
raison d'etre of religion besides 'prophetical criticism of the status quo'
or 'prophetical criticism of the status quo' (my formulation) or 'a
society which is both socially healthy and allows the fourth level values to
flourish' which 'must surely
involve an intellectual validation and support for social level institutions
... building on what we already have in the way of social institutions'
(your formulation again) all come down to the same thing:
Good prophecy is constructive and not destructive. It builds a radically new
society ... from the existing building blocks. Could you agree that type of
prophecy is the only raison d'etre of religion? And ... that priests
(including Anglican ones...) keeping the building blocks together in their
old relationships are not only superfluous but even hindering divine
purpose?
That of course would leave us ample room for bickering about the size of the
building blocks: to what extent do we have to be conservative (leaving big
social institutions intact) and to what extent do we need progress
(dissolving them and rebuilding with their smaller components).
You wrote:
'I believe it is possible to discriminate between religions on the basis of
Quality. My understanding of Christianity is the highest Quality formulation
that I've found so far ... but it remains open to revision. It also includes
elements of other religions. I guess the key thing is that I don't believe
in a neutral objective viewpoint from which to assess different faiths, and
as a matter of historical accident I've ended up as an Anglican. The
important thing is to become as high quality an Anglican as I can get. It's
possible that the pursuit of Quality will lead to Anglican understandings
being left behind, but I'm some way away from that blessed state!'
I guess that pretty much expresses the same view as I just tried to express
(among other things) in:
'Christianity is for me a type of narrative which I can use (and which I can
use better than any other type, because I grew up with it) to give my life
and my experience Meaning. Meaning is the best pointer I have to Dynamic
Quality beyond the 4th level, because I have little feeling for Beauty
(which may be a better pointer to the moon for others).'
I would tend to substitute 'highest Quality practice' for 'highest Quality
formulation'. I think it was a matter of historical accident that I've ended
up as a Christian and that becoming a Quaker is very near that blessed state
in that it enabled me to leave most traditional Christian understandings
behind and that it enables me (potentially) to include nearly every valuable
element of other religions without compromising my Quaker identity.
I wrote:
'I agree that "a static aspect [of religion] might be radically dynamic to
someone who hasn't gone as far along the Way." But ... these static aspects
(from the perspective of some) are still only relevant then, because they
are still dynamic from the perspective of others. They lose relevance to the
extent that they are not helping people move on towards a (radically) new
way of life any more. Their relevance still derives from being dynamic for
some.'
You replied:
'I think I would say that static levels retain their Quality even if they
are not dynamic. The Quality of adequate nutrition is not eliminated when we
attain the DQ above the fourth level. In the same way the Quality of social
institutions is not (necessarily) eliminated at the same stage.'
Alright then, I agree that static aspects of religion may THEORETICALLY be
relevant BOTH to help people 'who haven't gone as far along the Way' move on
AND to safeguard lower level static patterns of values which are needed to
found higher level static patterns of values.
17/11/01 23:30 +0100 I wrote (in the post that made you start this thread):
'I agree with your "ladder" metaphor: within limits a spectrum of patterns
of value (with both lower and higher
"rungs") is necessary. Until everyone has reached the higher rungs, the
lower rungs are still valuable for the "migration towards Dynamic Quality".
(And when the last ones have reached the higher rungs, new even higher rungs
will have been added.)'
So I now add to this: Even if everyone has reached the top rung (if there
would ever be one), the lowest rungs must stay in place to prevent the
ladder from falling apart.
Which in fact I already stated 30/11/01 22:53 +0100:
'I like your ladder metaphor and agree with your conclusion about the
permanent necessity of the lower rungs.'
BUT you already agreed 6/4 10:03 +0100 'that preserving society is no task
of religion any more in our (Western) society'.
I wrote 25/3 23:02 +0100:
'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.'
You replied 26/3 12:51 +0000:
'From a MoQ perspective I think [Christianity is] about accepting
and valuing our own static natures, as well as our openness to the dynamic.
To go back to where we started: "We need both static and Dynamic (aspects of
static patterns of value)."'
I agree, but couldn't we leave the task of preserving needed social and
intellectual patterns of values to science and give religion as priority to
stimulate our openness to DQ? In other words (again): shouldn't the primary
task of religion be prophetic?
You finally wrote 4/11 12:07 -0000:
'I think the idea of leaving social progress to science is dangerously
misconceived. Or are you thinking of a MoQ-directed science, and not SOM?'
I didn't suggest to 'leave social progress to science' however, but merely
the 'safeguarding (latching) [of] the results of social progress'. MoQ-based
science would be better, but even SOM-based science is a high enough quality
intellectual pattern of values to be able to safeguard most of the results
of social progress THAT RESULTS FROM AN OPENNESS TO DQ RESULTING FROM
PROPHETIC RELIGION.
You concluded with:
'All I can say is that contemplation of the Eucharist tends to produce
Quality moments in me! (and in those to whom I have ministered). In other
words, the repetition provides a focus for dynamic spiritual growth. Perhaps
we're all just mired in the third level....'
You are being unnecessarily harsh on Anglicans. You're not mired in the
third level. 'Rituals [like the Eucharist] may be the connecting link
between the social and intellectual levels of evolution' according to Pirsig
('Lila' ch. 30). So Anglicanism may actually be a primitive intellectual
pattern of values. (-;
Seriously, I simply don't understand how such a ritual can provide anything
dynamic. It can only latch past DQ experiences and communicate those (now
static) patterns of values to followers. Are you sure those 'Quality
moments' are DQ moments? Couldn't they just be sq moments? Also valuable, of
course, but not what I seek in religion.
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 23:10:50 GMT