From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Nov 01 2004 - 05:54:35 GMT
DMB,
Ok, you've shown how Pirsig thinks that anyone who takes part in ritualized
religion has been hypnotized. But since I am not a theist, have no faith,
take no part in religious ritual, why did you conclude that I am hypnotized?
But more importantly, why should anyone take Pirsig seriously about this?
His statement that "faith is the willingness to believe in falsehoods" is a
sure sign of ignorance (and it is a violation of his own principle that one
should stick to conventional meanings of words). There is, of course, a lot
of truth in saying that ritualized religion is SQ covering up DQ. But that
is not the end of it. His, and your, understanding of religion is the sort
that a child learns. Many adults keep with that, and, yes, for them,
religion is mostly, if not entirely, on the social level. But for thinking
theists, those ideas of God are left behind. I doubt that you will find a
theologian, ancient or modern, describing God as the Supreme Being (as you
did in an earlier post). More likely, you will find God referred to as
Being as such (not "a" being), or as beyond both being and non-being. A
child learns about God in terms that he or she can understand. An
intelligent theistic adult learns that God is beyond understanding. So when
you criticize theism in terms of understandable concepts, you clearly do
not understand theism.
And, as usual, you are misunderstanding what I have said. For example:
[DMB:] Or if that's all too much, let me just put it this way. Instead of
direct
> answers to direct questions, you're basically telling me that I won't
> understand faith until I have faith. I have to believe it first, then I'll
> see it.
For a full understanding of faith, one must have faith, same as for
understanding love. But one can get some idea of it by listening to people
who have it. I don't fully understand it, since I don't have it, but I've
read enough to realize that one can have faith, and still be intellectual.
As I said before, it is helpful to distinguish 'faith' from 'belief'. One
believes in this or that proposition, but faith is more of a way of life.
[DMB:] For a guy asserting empiricism over faith, this seems to beg the
> quetions is a very huge way.
I haven't asserted empiricism over faith. I understand faith to be a way
(not the only one, and specifically not mine) of dealing with questions
that empiricism cannot answer one way or the other. One such question is:
is it meaningful to apply the concept (or non-concept) of Quality to the
inorganic level? There is no empirical evidence for it, yet Pirsig assumes
it, so on what basis is it assumed? (And no, I am not claiming that Pirsig
has faith. Just pointing out that empiricism doesn't cover everything.)
[DMB"] The "advice" to approach these questions from
> the perspective of theology strikes me as the same. To the extent that
> theology is the study of God, it begins with the very premise that is in
> dispute, no?
I have not advised you to approach the question of God from the perspective
of theology. I have advised you to read some theology before you attack it,
or make any assumptions about it. That's just intellectual common sense. If
you have no use for God, that's fine. But many intelligent people do have a
use for it, and simply do not think about these things in the way you
assume they do.
- Scott
> DMB had said:
> Ah ha! I knew I smelled a rat. You haven't studied christianity so much as
> indoctrinated yourself, hypnotized yourself.
>
> Scott asked:
> I am truly perplexed by this. How you got from what I said to an
> accusation of being hypnotized I just can't fathom, though I suppose you
> will take my inability to fathom it as further proof of my being
hypnotized
> (like the psychiatrist interpreting the mental patient). So how about a
> clear explanation of how you came to that conclusion, so I can, just
> possibly, de-hypnotize myself? What rat did you smell?
>
> dmb answers:
> I was thinking of some passages from Lila. The first comes a few pages
into
> chapter 29, where Pirsig is talking about sanity and truth. There he talks
> about the cultural patterns that constitute sanity and the devices
employed
> to maintain such patterns.
>
> "The theater's a form of hypnosis. So are movies and TV. ...You know they
> are an illusion yet you enter the illusion and become part of it and while
> the illusion is taking place you are not aware that it is an illusion.
This
> is hypnosis. It is trance. Its also a form of temporary insanity. But its
> also a powerful force for cultural reinforcement and for this reason the
> culture promotes movies and cnsors them for its own benefit."
>
> Skipping ahead to the end of chapter 30, where he cotinues this theme with
> respect to ritualistic religion he says, "we don't preform rituals because
> we believe in God. We believe in God becasue we preform rituals." And this
> is preceeded, a few pages into the same chapter, by a specific reference
to
> christian ritual saying, "It is considered correct to say that until you
> undersatnd that the wafer is REALLY THE BODY OF CHRIST you will not
> understand the mass." He's saying that the ritual only works when it is
NOT
> taken symbolically, but actually. Do you see where I'm going with this
yet?
>
> Take a look at how you began this post, the one that asks what is meant by
> hypnotism, indoctrination....
>
> Scott said:
> 'Faith', to a religous practioner, is as undefinable as 'love','reason',
or
> 'quality'. To some extent, one can get an idea of what faith means to
> practitioners by reading what they have to say about it. You can't
> get it from a definition. Suppose I have never been in love, and never
read
> novels or watched movies or TV about people being in love. Should I call
> you "lame", "condescending", "weaselish", "indoctrinated", "hypnotized"
for
> not being able to define it in such a way that I could know what being in
> love is like?
>
> dmb says:
> I bet you still don't see it, eh? Add these passages to the one that says
> all religions "tend to gild DQ with all sorts of static interpretations"
> that "shut out its sunlight and enentually strangle it". Add the one that
> says ritualistic religion is fine for social level people. Add the one
that
> says, "enlightenment is distributed in all parts of the world" but that
> "some cultures accept it and others screen out recognition of it." Add all
> this together, plus tons more, and you start to get a very clear picture
of
> the difference between social level (premodern) religion and the kind of
> philosophical mysticism presented by Pirsig. And so FINALLY getting to the
> answer, it seems pretty clear to me that your assertions about the meaning
> of faith, and whatever it was that smelled like a rat originally, reveal
> that you are talking about what is meaning to the hypnotized. You're
talking
> about what faith means, NOT as a concept, but as a belief that has been
> generated by the practice of ritual. "We believe in God BECAUSE we
practice
> ritual", not the other way around, see? And your assertion that the word
> "faith" can't be understood except by those "parctitioners" of the faith.
> This is a clear indication that we are NOT talking about an abstract
symbol,
> not an intellectual thing, but a physical and psychological experience.
This
> is what I mean when talking of hypnosis.
>
> From an intellectual perspective, the wafer in mass is only a symbol. At
the
> same time, of course, the intellectual description of this distinction
need
> not rob the magic entirely. In fact, I think it was Campbell who described
> ritual as "the enactment of a myth". He explains that there is something
> about engaging the body and the voice, the ritual gestures and ritual
words,
> that has a way of circumventing the intellect and instilling belief to
more
> basic parts of the mind. In other words, he backs Pirsigs assertion that
> ritual preeceeds belief and that such beliefs are of a different order
than
> intellect.
>
> Or if that's all too much, let me just put it this way. Instead of direct
> answers to direct questions, you're basically telling me that I won't
> understand faith until I have faith. I have to believe it first, then I'll
> see it. For a guy asserting empiricism over faith, this seems to beg the
> quetions is a very huge way. The "advice" to approach these questions from
> the perspective of theology strikes me as the same. To the extent that
> theology is the study of God, it begins with the very premise that is in
> dispute, no?
>
> In case you've lost track, (I've still got dozens of posts left to read
and
> may have lost track myself) I'm defending Pirsig's philosophical
mysticism,
> his adherence to the perennial philosophy, against "clap-trap", "low-grade
> yelping" and "ritualistic religion". (These are all references to passages
> in Lila too.) Its not enough to distance yourself from the bible-thumping
> low-brows we all know and despise, see? The danger is NOT that you'll be
> lumped in with them. The danger is convincing yourself to believe things
for
> which there is no evidence.
>
> Mystics sometimes report an overwhelming sense of love and there are lots
of
> other aspects that could be metaphorically expressed in terms of human
> thoughts and feelings, but is there really anything like evidence for a
> personal god who helps us and judges us? Is that not what remains in the
> most "liberal" theologians? God is still other, right?
>
> Miles to go before I sleep...
>
>
> 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 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 05:56:41 GMT