From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Mar 31 2005 - 21:52:54 BST
Ant, Matt, Max, Sam, Seth and all --
Matt said March 17th:
> Pirsig has basically told us that each of us has a
>special relation to Quality that no one can override.
>
Anthony replied:
> Yes, this is an issue that I'd like Sam Norton to deal
> with properly at some point. Why even have a notion of a theistic God or
> even established religions when we already have a "special relation to
> Quality that no one [else] can override"?
>
> To which Sam says: mu.
As someone who is considered to be straddling the fence between religion and
the MoQ, my perspective may be helpful here. I'm aware of Anthony's and
Matt's positions and assume from previous MD comments that Sam Norton
represents the priesthood.
As to Anthony's question: "Why even have a notion of a theistic God or even
established religions when we already have a special relation to Quality?"
this is not a cut and dried issue. I would turn it around as Sam or Max
might ask it: Why do we need a philosophy of Quality (which requires a high
level of intellectual comprehension) when we can have a personal
relationship with God? Those who derive value from their theistic
experience would appear to have a decided advantage.
Max has countered that "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a
relationship with a transcendental, while a special relationship with
Quality takes place on an immanent plateau. A relationship with a deity is
something that we can not know
directly. On the other hand, Quality is something that we can know
directly."
But how valid is that argument? I see it as at least arguable. For
example, what is a "relationship with a transcendental"? Is it an 'out of
body' experience? ... a mystical revelation? ... or (perhaps?) a genuine
personal experience? Since the directness claimed for a "Quality
experience" seems to be a matter of some debate here, and born-again
Christians claim unequivocally that they have a personal relationship with
Jesus, on what ground are we judging the validity of these beliefs?
Are they in fact, as Seth suggests, the same thing?
> I know that in Christian language, a "personal relationship with Jesus
> Christ" means the same as "a special relationship to Quality that no one
> else can override."
Inasmuch as the religious and philosophical objectives are both aimed at
transcending finite existence, I would pose a different question. Have we
not mistakenly equated Theism with belief in a personal deity? I submit
that this is a misconception resulting from the haste of some to put down
anything resembling a supernatural source -- and that includes the concept
of Intelligent Design (not inherently theistic) as well as God (not
necessarily anthropomorphic). I've called this attitude a tendency to
'throw the babe out with the bathwater', and I think it is hypocritical to
be positing belief in a qualitative essence as a more "enlightened", more
"intimate" approach to philosophical truth than belief in a transcendent
reality.
One doesn't need miracles or a virgin birth in order to believe in a
transcendent primary source. But it does require the acceptance of a
supernatural reality. That, I believe, is why religion continues to
flourish while philosophies based on metaphysical euphemisms are doomed to
endless rhetorical parsing.
Essentially 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 : Thu Mar 31 2005 - 23:17:07 BST