From: MarshaV (marshalz@charter.net)
Date: Tue Mar 15 2005 - 12:23:48 GMT
Hi Sam,
To me your dialogue has the flavor of Christianity. You do not need to use
the word 'God'. As a priest your world view is influenced by your religion
and it's tradition. If it weren't, you'd be a lousy priest. Unless
becoming a priest was, for you, just an interesting way to feed, clothe and
stimulate your mind.
There have been many great responses to your "severe tensions", but days
later you proceed as if the response were insignificant to your purpose and
you ignore them.
I asked what it was that you'd 'discovered or been taught' that conflicts
with Pirsig's MOQ. You did not answer my question. You told me what you
thought. So I told you what I thought.
In my experience even a few nanoseconds of DQ are a privilege. The problem
seems to be that 'pure experience' doesn't do what YOU want it to do.
You based your second point on the fact that Pirsig hasn't read
Wittgenstein and therefore doesn't understand modern
metaphysics. Baloney!!! Have you read Northrop? You have been told that
Northrop would help your understanding of MOQ, and this is a MOQ
list. Right?
I am grateful to you, though. The wonderful responses you have elicited
have been very helpful to my understanding of MOQ. It is frustrating and
unfortunate that so many of the responses just blow through you.
Marsha
At 07:46 AM 3/15/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>Interesting that I didn't mention God once in that first 'severe tensions'
>post, and yet you bring it in for most of your reply, and it is then the
>issue that gets taken up. Undoubtedly my faith is a part of how I view the
>world, but I don't think the tensions depend on my religious beliefs.
>(Besides which, if I didn't 'accept the metaphysics of quality' to some
>extent, there wouldn't be any tension, would there?)
>
>In broad terms, my concerns overlap with those of Matt (an atheist) and
>Scott (an interested non-believer). So whilst you might be able to
>discount my qualms as the ravings of a religious fruit and nutcake, you
>can't do the same with Matt and Scott - at least, not if you have any
>concern for intellectual integrity (but maybe I'm assuming too much). How
>do you cope with their arguments, when you can't pigeonhole them in the
>same way, and thereby insulate your beliefs from what they have to say
>along similar lines?
>
>If Matt and Scott didn't exist, and I was a lone voice, I would certainly
>have left by now. It's the fact that some people do 'get' what I'm driving
>at - and see that it doesn't depend on prior religious beliefs, ie don't
>interpret my views through the lens of 200 year old Enlightenment
>propaganda - that reassure me that I'm not completely barking mad. But
>hey, if it's one person, he's mad, if it's two people, it's a cult, if
>it's three thousand it's a religion. Only a few more to go....
>
>Sam
>
>
>
>
>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 : Tue Mar 15 2005 - 14:00:09 GMT