From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 01 2005 - 16:57:13 GMT
Hi Ham,
I must start this by stating I am not trying to persuade, but just open to
persuasion myself; open to the idea of developing 'New eyes' or a
'Beginner's mind.'
Ham)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?
Chin)Pirsig says this.
Ham)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?
Chin)The MOQ is anti-theist. 'God' as used in Hindu is not mean the same as
'God' that is out there in the Christian religions such as Babtist,
Methodist, and Catholic. With that said, I would be less than honest if I
did not admit, as I have before, that I still believe in God, as I do not
see it has been proven that there is no 'Master mind' at the center of the
universe orchestrating the dance of the particles and waves that are not
even restricted to particles and waves themselves. My view of God is still
the Creator, Source, or the One.
Ham)And, aside from the
growing nihilism of Western culture, what is there about "modernism" that is
incompatible with spirituality or belief in a creator?
Chin)All Western culture does not follow the religions that downplay the
Holy Spirit, or that the creator is also everywhere, in everything. I am not
familiar with 'All' Western religions, or even that familiar with the ones I
have experienced on my own. What would be separate from Quality would be
that the Creator cannot also be in the wrench you use or the motorcycle you
work on or the idea that your God is better than the God that is referred to
in Hindu or the Creator of the Native American, or the Nothingness of the
Bhuddist.
Ham)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?
Chin)Christianity is not responsible for the laws for the rights of other
religions; the Gov is. Would you not agree?
> As stated before, Christianity is not part of a more universal
> spiritual enlightenment, such as Buddhism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Native
> American spirituality.
Ham)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.
Chin)First, a caveat; To lump all Christianity, as well as all Easter
religions into one might be a misconception to begin with. There are
different churches and different teachings within all. Christianity as I
understand it does not allow other beliefs to penetrate into the teaching of
Christianity, and doesn't allow metaphysics into the teaching or
understanding of the world. Christianity has not evolved, yet, to the
acceptance of ideas from the parish, even if the parish includes those from
other cultures/religions. 'The Word' is final, as it was interpreted long
ago. As I have already stated previously, in Eastern religions the word is
no more than a tool for pointing; you must find God or Buddha or The One or
Nothingness through a life long search; a circular search for enlightenment
for which experienced eyes must return to the 'New eyes', the eyes of a
child and start over from the new eyes, or new way of seeing from the
enlightenment.
> 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.
Ham)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.
Chin)Mysticism is one arriving at the Q part of the MOQ. In the MOQ it is
called DQ, and to put it into concept, DQ can be experienced in the wrench
you use to work on a motorcycle, or the transcendence into becoming a part
of the motorcycle, and part of the scenery. You become One with the
universe. The higher understanding is related on a lower plane; words are on
the lower plane, but as you have pointed out, words are necessary in
conveying our experience, as we have not yet managed communication without
words.
> 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.
Ham)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.
Chin)I don't understand how providing a formal thesis would be less than a
'Ready-made' philosophy any less than forcing an understanding of God
through words interpreted in another time forced upon the parish. A formal
thesis is developed to be tested to become theory, or what has been
transferred from meaning theory to meaning fact. If you do not think for
yourself, as you are doing, then you are no more than a lamb waiting
slaughter. The road map says that this Quality, or DQ can be found in the
smallest things you do, or it can be thrust upon you like a bolt of
lightening that destroys everything you have learned or even experienced in
the past. A theory only holds true at one point in time and space, and
philosophology only holds true for the philosophers who understand it. It
would seem to me that the philosophologer may be in no better shape than the
Christian who allows others to tell them their religious beliefs, or tell
them their facts. Philosophy is an ongoing pursuit for understanding of more
than words; an understanding of experiences or even feelings like love.
'Better than' philosophy might offer a road map, such as adding value to S/O
so that scientific as well as religious experiences may be viewed from 'New
eyes.'
> 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?
Ham)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.
Chin)Intuition, in my view, is a better road to understanding than
philosophology whatever your meaning. This word intuitive may be
misunderstood in the Western culture, Maybe you can explain philosophology
better to me so I can understand.
> 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>
Ham)Pirsig's ontology is so "hidden" that it's not there!
Chin)What is "hidden?" Is it hidden in ontology, science, or reality? To be
able to devlop a bomb that can reduce thousands upon thousands of people to
to ashes through a flash of light, or maybe more so the fact that we
actually used it, throws the idea of 'there' completely out the window of
reality into another dimension.
Maybe Pirsig is simply asking the question "What is ontology?"
>
> 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.
Ham)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.
Chin)A dynamic philosophy must address new scientific discovery; otherwise
it is lost in the past. The past prior to MOQ was a limit to SOM in our
understanding, and dualistic thinking became our limits. The scientific
discovery of what's inside the atom lead us to a metaphysical quesiton of
reality that has changed as we knew it.
> 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.
Ham)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.
Chin)I say "Good for you." This is how I come to understand anything. It is
what I call a 'Null Hypothesis.' Unless it can prove itself in my eyes, then
there is no proof. It may (or may not) help to see DQ/SQ morality as a set
of static patterns of morality built from the social and intellectual
patterns of the past that were dynamic enough to secure a place in these
social and intellectual patters. For any perceivable DQ to work its way in,
it must be accepted by the social and/or intellectual patterns. It is
similar to that means that what is learned can be can be added to our
culture as laws can be added to the set of laws, and/or dropped as they no
longer apply. The flat earth lost its value once it was discovered you could
travel to the other side of the world without falling off into the abyss.
> 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?
Ham)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.
Chin)Then you would agree strongly that these words do not show imitative
poetry as opposed to a new philosophy?
FWIW, I agree you do not bring a people to a better understanding by trying
to force your view upon them. You don't convert a Muslim to Christianity by
telling the Muslim they are wrong, and you don't convert a Christian to a
more universal belief by telling them they are wrong. You convert them by
showing that you offer is a higher Quality understanding of what God is. If
God and Allah can be shown to be interchangeable with The One, Nothingness,
The Creator, the Source, and Absolute, then you may better turn idealism and
the metaphysical creator toward a more universal understanding; an
understanding that will bring the peoples of the world together.
To deny a philosophy because it denies God is exclusive; to deny religion
because it includes God is exclusive. What is being said by Pirsig is that
"We should not follow the Victorian Principles that Christianity has been
reduced to blindly, but we shouldn't abolish them completely. We should dust
them off to see if they add anything to society." (paraphrased from ZMM)
Here's wishing you the strength to make your New Year's resolutions a
reality; whether made on the date of the New Year or not.
Chin
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 Jan 01 2005 - 23:11:51 GMT