From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Aug 07 2004 - 18:21:51 BST
Wim, Sam and all MOQers:
Wim Nusselder said:
A few short first remarks on: 206 'The MOQ would add a fourth stage where
the term "God" is completely dropped as a relic of an evil social
suppression of intellectual and Dynamic freedom. The MOQ is not just
atheistic in this regard. It is anti-theistic.' - I don't know what 'stages'
are meant. I'll have to look it up in the context.
dmb replies:
I think the stages are roughly the same as the levels. Very roughly. So
we're talking about the difference between social and intellectual patterns
as well as the difference between sq and DQ. So the idea that the fourth
stage drops the term "God" is basically about moving from the social level
to the intellectual level. The idea that sectarian religions tend to confuse
static representions with the DQ they are supposed to represent is also
expressed in chapter 30 of Lila...
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of DQ, a sign-post which
allows socially pattern-dominated people to see DQ. The problem has always
been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what they
merely represent and are allowed to destroy the DQ they were originally
intended to preserve."
dmb continues:
The term "God" is supposed to be a metaphor for a mystery, for the mystic
reality or DQ. Social level religions have anthropomorphized the term so
that God is a father, an actual entity that one may appeal to for certain
kinds of answers and who will bestow blessings and punishments, etc. I think
this is the kind of sectarian religion that Pirsig is rejecting with his
anti-theism.
Just the use of the pronoun "his" is enough to make Pirsig smell a rat...
195 (Refering to the idea that "God reproduces his own knowledge in the
finite mind".)"Here comes the rat. Here, with the word 'his', is the
anthropomorphism of the rat. All we need now is a priest to collect money
for the rat and pocket it for himself. I really have no use for these
smart-talking theists. They destroy religion."
Wim said:
- My favourite description of "God" (as I wrote before in MD) is 'that which
connects everyone and everything'. I'm agnostic in regard to all other
descriptions of the term "God". I recognize that other descriptions have
(static) value at times and go along with them in discussing with others who
favour them for the sake of communication.
dmb says:
As the quote from chapter 30 says, the MOQ views the various static
portrayals of DQ as useful only insofar as they serve to represent DQ. I
would suggest defining God as "that which connects everyone and everything"
fails to portray DQ. The MOQ asserts that everyone and everything is not
just connected, but exists in a mystic unity that static portrayals can only
point to. Or as Pirsig puts it, "The MOQ says there is an ultimate unity but
the interrelation of subject and object does not reveal it." So your
favorite definition of "God" sounds close to the MOQ, but actually isn't. I
think this is the sort of thing that angered Pirsig about Green. The
following quote echoes the anti-theism quote too....
196 "Thus we make the slow journey from reason to Bible-babble. These are
the people who create logical positivists as a reaction." "The reason he
'knows not why' is that he has abandoned intelligence for religious
conformity. Actually Green is saying things that are very close to the MOQ
and it is angering to see him curtseying in this way to medieval dogmatic
superstition. The selling out of intellectual truth to the social icons of
organized relgion is seen by the MOQ as an evil act."
Wim said:
- I don't see how the term "God" (or any term) can itself suppress
intellectual and Dynamic freedom given our ability to redescribe (or even
drop) it. Who or what is exactly suppressing freedom if I use that term in
the way I do?
dmb replies:
I can see that my question to you and Sam imples an accusation of this
particular kind of evil, but at this point I'm just asking for your
thoughts. Your view of religion, and almost everything else, is not very
clear to me but I suspect that the desire to find compatibility between the
MOQ and certain sects like Quakerism and Anglicanism may have landed both of
you in hot water. In private exchanges Sam has denied this, but continues to
assert a literal virgin birth and ressurection despite the fact that science
and intellect views this as entirely implausable, if not impossible. Or as
Pirsig puts it, "The MOQ does not rest on faith. In the MOQ faith is very
low quality
stuff, a willingness to believe falsehoods."
Wim said:
- Do you remember that we wrote in the 'God relieves from suffering'-thread
in April 2003 about the Dutch theologian Kuitert. (Underneath you find the
last e-mail I send you about that subject.) Do you still think his doing
away with "God" and his use of the term 'god' instead is useful? Would it be
compatible with the MoQ in your understanding?
dmb says:
I don't recall Kuitert well enough to say if his views are compatiable or
not, but let's look at the part you left out back then...
Wim said:
I don't see how Kuitert is in danger of trading a anthropormorphic god image
for an abstract god image. He explicitly puts all images of god into
perspective as man-made creations, including theological abstract ones. He
locates the divine not in any image, but in the imaging capability of man.
In the words of another part of his article:
'Is nothing holy anymore? Understandable question, when another religious
image is overtaken by time. My answer is formulated in the title of my last
book: man is holy, because he is FOR A TIME A PLACE OF GOD. Indeed, I slide
men and god into one another, but without making god into an ingredient of
man. Is that possible? Yes, only in ONE way without making accidents. Read
"spirit" for "god". Man is for a while a governor of spirit, because he
commands the word, and the power of the word is spirit.'
dmb:
For starters, I would say that "the imaging capability of man" is static and
therefore NOT compatible with the MOQ's view, which identifies DQ with
religious mysticism, not images or image makers. Beyond that, Kuitert's
assertions about man as the governor of spirit, command of the word and the
identity of word and spirit strikes me as bible-babble. It makes no sense to
me. What does he mean by "the word"? The bible? Language in general? The
logos? How does one "slide men and god into one another"? Please understand
that I'm not asking you to clarify this theology. These are rhetorical
questions designed to show you that the man is spewing nonsense here. To
borrow a pithy phrase from Pirsig, its a "smorgasbord of plattitudes".
Does that help?
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sat Aug 07 2004 - 18:29:51 BST