From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 07 2004 - 22:54:54 GMT
Marsha, Scott and all MOQers:
Marsha asked Scott:
What is your objection to a secular view?
Scott answered:
That it doesn't recognize non-empirical reality, that as a result it is
depraved (what Buddhists call fundamental ignorance, Christians call
original sin, and what I tend to call original insanity). We know something
is fundamentally wrong with us, but the secular viewpoint only offers drugs
to mask that wrongness, not cure it: material success, sports, TV, etc.
dmb says:
I feel your pain, but the spiritual emptiness of materialism is part of what
Pirsig is targeting. Its that mechanical rabbit and the lonely isolated ego
and all that. And yet Pirsig's solution does not require us to "recognize
non-empirical reality". I mean, the MOQ does not ask us to choose between
the superficiality of materialism or the falsehoods of faith. He rejects
both and so do I. The main idea here being that the claims of philosophical
mysticism, unlike traditional religion, ARE empirically based. The idea here
is to have an understanding of the world that permits us to have a spiritual
life without having to check our brains at the door. Its about knowledge and
experience, not belief, see? (As Marx put it, "Are you gonna believe ME, or
your LYING EYES?" Groucho Marx, that is.) And I have to say that I detect a
certain kind of personal angst in your short explanation, Scott. And that's
normal these days. But the suggestion that religion is better than drugs and
TV makes me wonder if such a religion is more like a 12-step program for
addicts than a genuinely spiritual enterprize.
Marsha to Scott:
> You've previously stated that you tossed away your old Christian beliefs,
> and later gained a new understanding. Shouldn't all of Christendom toss
> away their old, outdated beliefs to allow a new understanding to dawn
> within?
Scott replied:
I think they should all question their beliefs. I don't expect them all to
just toss them, though -- that's probably asking too much of human nature.
When I tossed them I was 14, and thought I was being clever. I later
realized that I wasn't, that what I was tossing was a caricature of
Christianity, and that there was something of great value that I had
missed. By the time I had realized this, though, I had learned to live
without the surrounding ritual and whatnot. I see no problem with living
with the ritual, as long as one recognizes it for what it is -- a way to
keep oneself focused.
dmb says:
Apparently, you're quite the tosser. But seriously, I think most people go
through that experience at about the same age. I did that too. Most people
achieve a new cognitive level that no longer permits us to believe the
things we once did. But I don't know that this childish version of religion
is really what we're debating. And Marsha makes a good point. Don't we all
want to hold mature and ever improving understandings of this tradition? And
don't we have to grow up that way as a culture too? This is where religion
should be leading us, but instead most churches keep their members in a
perpetual state of childhoood, of arrested spiritual development. And I
don't think the theologians dealing with this are ever going to get anywhere
as long as they demand we "recognize non-empirical reality", as long as the
churches ask us to believe the unbelieveable, to misinterpret myths as
facts, the religious community will continue to experience extreme
"cognitive pressure". And I really don't think that ritual is "a way to keep
oneself focused". This are the kinds of statements that lead me to the
conclusion that you've decided to indoctrinate yourself, hypnotize yourself
with it like... a person does with drugs and television.
Marsha axed:
How long, do tell, do you think it will take the Christian establishment to
actually encourage it's followers to actually think for themselves? Another
two thousand years?
Steve answerved:
I think it will be less than that, like a hundred or so, though of course I
am just guessing. But I see the current situation as rapidly (by historical
measures) reaching a climax, with the modern, secular view drowning in its
contradictions. And whether it is the Christian establishment that does the
encouraging, or whether it comes from the grass roots, I have no idea.
There are several "Christian establishments" after all, and I don't expect
them all, or even most, to be in the vanguard. I also have no idea whether
what results will be recognizably Christian.
dmb says:
One of the things I keep trying to get across is that the wisdom of
Christianity is, at its core, the same as the wisdom of all the great
religions. This perennial philosophy, the one that appears everywhere, is
expressed in each of these traditions. This core does not require us to
defend the particular dogmas of this or that faction, to choose one
expression above all others, only that we learn to see what is common to
all. It does not demand we shed our culture either, but recognize the
difference between the content and the form. This common core is like one
figure who wears many different costumes. The clothes are interesting and
some fit my style better than others, but ultimately there's just one person
under all those outfits. This is the kind of "religion" that is most
compatible with the MOQ's philosophical mysticism. The bits about faith and
theism can be thrown off like a silly old pair of hip-huggers from the 70's
without doing any harm to the perennial philosophy. So, let's get naked and
start tossing, shall we? :-)
Thanks,
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 : Mon Nov 08 2004 - 15:01:55 GMT