From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Dec 31 2004 - 22:54:56 GMT
Chin --
I don't know why I allow myself to be bothered by the persuasions of others,
but I often do. I do not belong to any religious group, am not dominated by
any political party, and am a moral relativist. In fact, I consider myself
a 'free-thinker' with an allegiance only to my own views as they have
developed over many decades. I also believe others have a right to express
their opinions, and I make it a point to consider all ideas that have the
support of logic and reason behind them.
What I resent is anyone's attempt to influence or direct my thinking in
accordance with an assumed "authority", whether this be the Bible or Talmud,
Darwinism, Marxism, Eastern Mysticism, Structuralism, or post-modern
nihilism. It is not an expression of free thought when someone quotes
scripture or passages from a book as an authoritative source of knowledge.
Imposing the belief system of another on one's thought processes, unless
intended simply to illustrate or amplify a point, is a form of evangelism
which impugns the intellectual integrity of the thinker and, in the long
run, impedes the development of new ideas. I think, or at least would hope,
that most of us here share this view.
Kindly hold that thought in mind as I turn to your comparative analysis of
the Schleiermacher study, which I'd quoted without bias of any kind but
rather to demonstrate what I believed to be a conceptual premise similar to
that of Mr. Pirsig.
Your response:
> Actually without adding the concept of Being, Creator, Source, and
> Nothingness, it doesn't fit the MOQ, as the MOQ is atheistic and
> anti-theistic. The word God is denied as being interchangeable with
Quality,
> as Pirsig sees Chritianity as exclusive in its modern view. The only way
> Christianity would be able to fit in with the MOQ would be if it did not
> deny these other religions; maybe that is a bit too much to hope for.
I am aware that Mr. Pirsig has avoided taking a theistic position and that
one or two of the posters call themselves atheists but, frankly, I'm
surprised that the MOQ is considered "atheistic". Anti-theist, yes, but has
Pirsig or anyone else in this group actually claimed MOQ to be atheistic?
You also assert that "the word God is denied as being interchangeable with
Quality." Forgetting the lexicon for a moment, does this "denial" make any
real difference? Is not possible--even likely--that there are theists who
would subscribe to a God whose essence or value is Quality? Does that make
them any less theist? Or the MOQ any more so? And, aside from the
growing nihilism of Western culture, what is there about "modernism" that is
incompatible with spirituality or belief in a creator?
What troubles me most about your response is the notion that Christianity
"denies other religions". Christianity is of course a belief system of its
own; but I do not see Christians denying other religions. In fact,
Christians as individuals and as religious organizations have been most
charitable to the Jews in this country and are strong proponents of their
rights to a free Israel. As a predominantly Christian nation, we have
recognized and protected the rights of atheists, agnostics, Quakers,
Unitarians, Amish, Hindus and Buddhists, and even allowed Islamic mosques to
be built in Detroit and other cities. How then can you say Christianity
denies other religions?
> As stated before, Christianity is not part of a more universal
> spiritual enlightenment, such as Buddhism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Native
> American spirituality.
I've not read much of Eastern or Native American mysticism, but each of
these religious cultures has its own particular set of beliefs, symbols, and
dogma. Why do you consider them "universal" as opposed to Judeo-Christians?
And, why should a religious movement aspire to universatility anyway? I
don't see any more virtue in One World Religion than in One World
Government. Generally, the more "universal" a belief system is, the less
meaning it has for the individual believer. Look what's happened to
Catholicism, for example.
> I would however claim
> that there is no difference between spiritual mysticism and philosophical
> mysticism as long as there are no limitations place on mysticism to fit
into
> some sort of word traps that have nothing to do with mysticism at all.
Mysticism is mysticism. To attribute religiosity or philosophical agendas
to it is yet another semantic game. "Word traps", as you say. Philosophy
should not be concerned with pejorative labels; its purpose is to provide
conceptual rationales and new perspectives that impart meaning to the life
experience. Pirsig himself decried the tendency to talk in circles about
philosophy rather than working to advance new concepts: it's what he called
"philosophology". Frankly, I think the "mysticism" that's been discussed
here recently is a cover-up for the metaphysical shortcomings of MOQ.
> He didn't offer the 'Ready-made' philosophy. He leaves open our
> need to 'Think.' No philosophy can be considered complete, and no
philosophy
> can be considered universal as each individual would read a philosophy
> differently -- as you suggest, he may have made 'Logical' errors in the
view
> of some; mostly Western philosophers. If you concern yourself with
verifying
> your philosophy to agreement with others, then there is no way you could
> complete your philosopy, as there will always be other views. The most
> dynamic philosphical offerings may not be recognized as such in the
> philosopher's lifetime; that is unless it is no more than imitative poetry
> trying to pass itself off as philosophy; or possibly, maybe even
> understandable enough, and without holes to the point that everyone, not
> only the academically gifted few, can understand it.
It's all well and good to be encouraged to "think", however that makes the
author's philosophy subject to individual interpretation -- the problem with
most of the world's religions. Specificity is the goal of empiricists.
Since Mr. Pirsig feels the need to emulate the empirical approach, his lack
of specificity (i.e., providing a formal thesis) would seem to belie this
objective.
> To me, Pirsig's
> philosophy makes sense in a more 'intuitive' manner than philosophogology.
> The philosophology may be great for philospher-to-philsopher speak, but if
> it is going to make a difference in the world, should it not be
> understandable to all?
Again, I think you've misinterpreted what Pirsig meant by "philosophology".
Otherwise, I agree with your conclusion. But to be "understandable to all"
it must be complete in theory and not just an intuitive exercise.
> This;
> <Snip>And as long as thought knows
> its limits by acknowledging its dependence, then [Quality] is ensured as
the
> hidden ontology that secures the place of God</Snip>
Pirsig's ontology is so "hidden" that it's not there!
>
> does not even remotely resemble Pirsig's dialect. I find nothing at all in
> the MOQ that suggests limitations of thought pointing toward a dependence
on
> ontology. The MOQ is a more scientific road map; a better road map than
the
> SOM that holds no value, and denies Quantum Mechanics Theory.
A philosophy is not obligated to support or deny any scientific theory. A
metaphysical philosophy, however, must fully support its own theory if it is
to judged by the philosophical community.
> The whole
> point of the MOQ in my view is that it denies a dependence on the
dualality
> thinking of Western thought in depending on Subject/Object. Religion is no
> more than a part of the social patterns. In the MOQ, the intellect is a
> higher evolution than the social patterns, and DQ/SQ is a higher form of
> morality than social/biological morality, and intellectual/social
morality.
You're quoting scripture at me again, Chin! These statements are nothing
but self-serving dogmatic pronouncements by an author who refuses to support
them with an ontological thesis. You folks are all trying to pin down
assumptions which have no theoretical foundation. It's a futile exercise,
and will continue to be so.
> Quality does not secure the place of God, Quality replaces God, so no
> philosophy that is defined by ontology would resemble Pirsig's Philsophy.
>
> Would you not think?
No, I would not. I think replacing God with Quality because it is a more
fashionable word for our times is a pathetic excuse for a philosophy. The
great potential that MOQ might otherwise offer mankind by positing an
immanent source has been rendered impotent by the author's rejection of
idealism and a metaphysical creator.
Here's a final Happy New Year wish to you and yours,.
Ham
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 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 22:58:05 GMT