Re: MD is god real?

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 17:56:28 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD is god real?"

    Well, for me, not entirely. I think we are clearly
    living in a cosmos where what Pirsig calls DQ
    is an on-going occurance. So that new patterns
    appear all the time and some of these endure
    and repeat. Pirsig explains this very well and if you don't
    accept this what are you doing here?
    Now what do we want to call this source of new patterns?
    Pirsig says DQ. This is fine but I am happy to use the word
    god. In a way it does not matter. Using a new word gets
    rid of baggage, there is lots of bad baggage with the 'god'
    word. But there is also lots of valuable talk and thinking too.
    I think it is worth retaining the power of the 'god' word
    when trying to show the significance of the MOQ.
    Another way round is that lots of god-talk is clearly
    talk about what we might start calling DQ. The awe
    that seems proper to show DQ is clearly something like
    the sort of awe formerly shown to god. What else is god?
    Well I also like to say god is nothing. Why? Well what is
    the character of these new patterns? Well they are new?
    The levels evolve and emerge new patterns. Therefore
    genuine newness and emergence appears in the cosmos
    and in our experience. What do we mean by new? Well
    not derived, not dependent on what went before, therefore
    appearing out of nothing. Heidegger talks alot about this nothing
    and just like Pirsig's DQ this ends up sounding a lot like god.
    To me no accident. Of course, I also agree that lots of god talk
    is about a thing/personality and that this implies SQ-like qualities.
    Clearly, god or the source of SQ cannot be described in terms of SQ.
    I would contend that all bad god-talk is in terms of SQ or thingness
    and is clearly confused. Does this help? I accept that the 'god'
    word is not to everyone's taste but there are perfectly intelligent
    and reasonable ways of using it.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Ledbury" <jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:44 PM
    Subject: Re: MD is god real?

    > David Morey wrote:
    >
    >> Good start but pretty easy...
    >> God is that which underlies all definition.
    >>
    >
    > jl laughs:
    > God is that which defies all definition.
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Wed Oct 20 2004 - 03:07:31 BST