From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 18:29:34 BST
On 21 October 2004 3:26 AM Sam writes to all:
Hi all,
Content Advisory Warning: for those with an antipathy to Christian
perspectives, please look away now. You must consider your blood pressure
;-)
Pirsig claims that science is superior to Christian beliefs because it is
more dynamic, specifically that it has an 'eraser'. He - in common with much
conventional opinion - perceives Christianity as something which is unable
to change, and therefore of comparatively low Quality. As you might
imagine, I consider his opinion on this matter flawed and ill-founded.
Hi Sam and all:
[joe] IMO if I want to kiss a bull on the nose, I don't wave a red flag in
his face. IMO logic and morality have the same foundation-different levels.
Can logic experience DQ? Can DQ only be experienced instinctively? I don't
like the word 'instinctive' anymore. It implies an organ that holds all the
instincts. I prefer a vibrational approach to DQ which is experienced
mystically.
Faith-mystic-logic. The mystic erases logic. Faith erases the mystic. IMO
the mystic is common to all. Faith is found in the awareness of the
individual. Why in hell was a social institution of Faith acting as an
eraser to the mystic experience of gravity by Gallileo? You say logic! An
individual Faith is used to erase the level for all? Let's blow up our
world!
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:28 AM
Subject: MD Galileo
> Hi all,
>
> Content Advisory Warning: for those with an antipathy to Christian
> perspectives, please look away
> now. You must consider your blood pressure ;-)
>
> Pirsig claims that science is superior to Christian beliefs because it is
> more dynamic, specifically
> that it has an 'eraser'. He - in common with much conventional opinion -
> perceives Christianity as
> something which is unable to change, and therefore of comparatively low
> Quality. As you might
> imagine, I consider his opinion on this matter flawed and ill-founded.
>
> To bring this out, I'd like to look at the Galileo episode as Galileo is
> often brought out as an
> example of the wickedness of church institutions, and certainly, to
> execute someone for their
> beliefs is an abominable act. However, the wickedness of that act - and
> the use of this example in
> the various debates between 'science and religion' (in truth, internal
> arguments within the
> Modernist/SOM mindset) has distorted one particular truth - and when
> Pirsig, and others not too far
> away from this forum, repeat the idea that Christianity cannot change,
> they are reproducing a static
> pattern which is not true, that is, which has low Quality. So I'd like
> simply to point out that it
> is not true, as it would seem conducive to a proper discussion for us to
> be in full possession of
> the facts. Not least because the increasing salience of religious
> questions in our world in the
> coming years will force us to examine our deepest assumptions, both
> religious, atheist, agnostic and
> absconding - all of us.
>
> So, Galileo. I would want to point out two things.
>
> 1. Although Galileo's perspective was correct (ie the earth does travel
> round the sun) it could not
> be shown to be correct at the time of the debate. The Ptolemaic model was
> a more accurate model for
> predicting the movements of the heavenly bodies. Galileo's perspective had
> greater beauty, and
> promised great things, but it could not be shown to be correct at the time
> of his trial. (See Kuhn
> on this, amongst others).
>
> 2. The church authorities did not rule out the possibility of change. I
> quote from Cardinal
> Bellarmino (Galileo's antagonist): "If there were any real proof that the
> Sun is in the centre of
> the universe and that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the Sun
> does not go round the Earth
> but the Earth around the Sun, then we would have to proceed with great
> circumspection in explaining
> passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit
> that we did not
> understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be
> true". In other words, if
> Galileo could have proved his point, then the Church would have backed
> down.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> 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 : Thu Oct 21 2004 - 18:53:13 BST