Re: MD is god real?

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Oct 23 2004 - 03:55:30 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Poetic Quality"

    Hi David,

    Your response was fun to read, but it's a great example of DMB's
    complaint about too much candy and not enough stew. I'll try to
    break your unnecessarily Faulknerian paragraph. into more manageable
    parts.

    On 21 Oct 2004 at 18:29, David Morey wrote:
    That question makes no sense to me
    and I have no way to answer it. God or
    quality are not beings or entities that may
    or may not be absent from the world.
    I think the problems here come down to
    ontology. As Pirsig says there is only
    experience.

    msh says:
    But Pirsig is the one who proposed proving the existence of Quality
    by seeing the absurdity of a world without it. It's a very clear
    and convincing argument. Are you saying that this too makes no
    sense?

    david:
    As Pirsig says there is only
    experience. We then cut it up and use
    bi-polar dualisms to analyse it. God and quality
    are not clearly of this sort. We cannot differentiate
    them out and contrast them to patterns that are
    clearly different from god-type or quality-type patterns

    msh says:
    See above and ZMM. Pirsig does precisely this.

    david:
    The use of terms like god and quality is with respect
    to understanding the dynamic non-patterned aspects
    of our experience.

    msh says:
    Pirsig explicitly rejects the use of the word "God" for "Quality"
    precisely because of the irrational baggage attached to "God", and I
    agree. If any one believes the terms are equivalent and insists on
    using "God" to describe reality, then I suggest that that person
    desires confusion. not clarity. I'm trying to find out whether or
    not you think the terms are equivalent.

    scott:
    Just ask yourself why you use a term
    like cosmos or universe even though there is no way to
    experience it as whole. To me it is clear that talk about
    quality as a whole or dynamic quality is on pretty similar
    ground to that occupied by truly philosophical thinking about
    god.

    msh says:
    See immediately above.

    david:
    You might not like god-talk. Fair enough that's a matter of taste.

    msh says:
    No. It's a matter of avoiding confusion. See immediately above
    immediately above.

    david:
    But you are always open to the accusation that whatever term you are
    using is just a substitute for god. I think both options are good,
    e.g. quality-talk gets us to think this deep stuff in a fresh way,
    whilst god-talk can use old words and thinking where that thinking
    has been good.

    msh says:
    See immediately above immediately above immediately above... In fact
    the rest of your post seems to be an attempt to justify your use of
    the word "God." I ask again: To you, are God and Quality the same?

    david:
    Most secular thinking fails to get as deep as Pirsig does, and let's
    face it when he gets deep he starts to open his thinking up to what
    is still religion, but of the eastern variety. I guess my position is
    pro-deep thinking, and my suggestion is that unless you avoid deep
    thinking, you are going to have to start talking about stuff that
    often provoke the use of the god-word.

    msh says:
    Your position seems to be pro-confusion. SIAIAIAIA...

    david:
    Do you really imagine that we would talk about god for thousands of
    years only to find that god is a fiction.

    msh says:
    Are you serious? Just look at what's been talked about for thousands
    of years.

    david:
    So far my research shows me that this secular argument is pretty
    weak, that it has more to do with avoiding hard thinking and tough
    questions.

    msh says:
    Again, it has to do with promoting clarity, avoiding confusion.

    david:
    For me the MOQ is part of a movement in thought that is shouting Hey!
    things are not as simple as science and secular thought claims. We
    have been on a journey. I suspect that going forward we may now have
    to think again about retrieving some of the concepts and thinking
    that may show where we have falsely simplified reality.

    msh says:
    Agreed. But sort of off the point... Again, again, I'm trying to
    discover whether or not you think the terms "God" and Quality" are
    equivalent. If not, what's the difference? If so, why use "God"
    except to confuse rather than clarify?

    Best,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
    everything." -- Henri Poincare'

    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 Oct 23 2004 - 03:56:22 BST