From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 18:44:37 BST
Hampday stated March 31st 2005:
>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.
Ham,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on this question.
I think this question is analogous to the primary and secondary sources in
history. The underlying theme of Pirsig’s philosophy is the Buddha’s advice
to go out and experience a personal relationship with the Good yourself
rather than take another person’s secondary advice about it.
The difference with established Christian religions is that they tend to
tell you what they think the Good is rather than encourage you to find out
yourself. As with any secondary historical source, the risk of distortion
(through prophets, gospel writers, bishops and then priests) is increased
through omission and invention. Why should I then take the distorted word
of a prophet and his representatives when I can directly experience the
Godhead myself through meditation or the traditional methods that native
tribes and mystics have been using for thousands of years before anyone
called Jesus walked this Earth?
>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."
Yes, I’d agree with this sentiment.
>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?
I’d see a ‘relationship with a transcendental’ as very much a one-way
relationship while a ‘relationship with Quality’ is very much a two-way one.
>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?
You can’t have a personal relationship with Jesus if he is a transcendental
entity. On the other hand, you experience Quality directly.
>Are they in fact, as Seth suggests, the same thing?
No.
> > 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."
Except the former is based on faith (and in MOQ terms read “low quality
intellectual pattern”) and probably induced by some form of hypnosis when
part of a congregation or religious crowd while a relationship with Quality
is a “matter of fact” one. For instance, if you think it’s better to get of
bed in the morning – you’ve made your first Quality decision of the day.
You then decide to meditate, wash your teeth, comb your hair, be nice to
your spouse at breakfast, feed the dog at the table, take the train rather
than drive a car to work - these are all Quality decisions. And you will
probably make a 101 Quality decisions before you’ve even reached work at 9
am.
Now someone else (such as a priest or your spouse) can suggest that you act
differently in this scenario (e.g. your spouse may suggest that you take the
car today as s/he won’t need it and, anyway, you might think global warming
is nothing but scaremongering etc) but ultimately it comes down to what
behaviour/experiences you think will be of higher quality. You can take
into account other people’s advice but ultimately it will be you and
immediate experience (i.e. the Godhead) that will be the arbiters of your
freedom and well-being each day, week, month and, in fact, for your whole
life.
>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?
Maybe you should ask Sam about this.
>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.
Ham, remember science is largely to do with repeatable, measurable static
patterns while experiences of the so-called “supernatural” are usually one
off and not measurable. I therefore don’t think the “supernatural” is
particularly relevant to the MOQ which is concerned with placing ethics
(i.e. repeated behaviour) on a scientific basis (rather than a religious
one!) to help you experience a higher quality relationship with the Good.
Moreover, due to the unscientific nature of the “supernatural” it is wide
open to hucksters and frauds of all kinds in the “supernatural-religious
business”. As such, it is understandable why Pirsig wants to distance the
MOQ from any supernatural or religious connotations. (Also see my post
about the “supernatural-religious business” from January 17th – some of
which is pasted below).
>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.
Considering the divisions and immense rifts in the Christian church
concerning doctrine over the years this “endless rhetorical parsing” is
obviously not just the province of MOQ Discuss! Moreover, Christianity in
the West (with the exception of the United States) is in decline and - since
the 1960s - interest in alternative philosophies has flourished. If the
latter wasn’t the case ZMM wouldn’t have been one of the best selling
philosophy books – if not the best selling - published in the 20th century.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
===========================================
Ant McWatt to Ron Winchester January 17th 2005:
I was recently watching a TV documentary (titled “Messiah”) concerning an
hypnotist (Derren Brown) who convinced five leading proponents/professionals
of various popular beliefs that he was someone with special powers. Even
though, Brown certainly hasn’t got any special powers, not one of these
proponents questioned whether he was genuine. As Brown wondered, there are
probably quite a few people in the various cults saying that they have
supernatural powers but are really frauds (even if they are gifted as Brown
is in hypnotism or other trickery). If the leaders that Brown met didn’t
seem too sceptical of him, it does make you wonder who else is getting
through.
Anyway, the proponents that Brown met were Janet Nohavec (from the
Spiritualist Church in New York), Ann Druffel (a leading ufologist from
California), Lorraine Di Felice (an astrologer who publishes the “The
Esoteric World News” magazine in Las Vegas), Abby Haydon (who is a proponent
of psychic reading, sound and colour healing based in Arizona) and Curt
Nordhielm (an Evangelical pastor from New England).
During the program, Brown convinced Nohavec (a proclaimed medium) that he
was himself a medium who could speak to the dead, convinced Druffel that he
could sense someone’s medical history purely by touch (supposedly because an
alien abduction had given him this power) and convinced Di Felice that he
could read her dreams by using “crystal energy” in a black box. Of course,
the so-called “Dream Catcher” he used with Di Felice had no such powers.
The fourth leader, Abby Haydon was convinced by Brown that he was a psychic
who could remotely view what she was drawing in another room.
Finally – the big one – Brown convinced Curt Nordhielm that he was a
preacher who can convert people to Christianity even with just a touch.
An advert was placed by Brown and Nordhielm inviting non-believers and
atheists to a discussion on spirituality. Out of a group of about 20, only
one person believed in God at the beginning and though some people left
halfway through the meeting (after an “instant conversion” by one touch),
the remaining people ended-up all changing their sceptical beliefs. This
was basically done by Brown using the power of suggestion. For instance, he
told everyone to stand-up and without any further instruction, everyone fell
backwards in their chairs, more or less at the same time. With just one
exception, everyone of these previous non-believers said they now believed
that God existed and even the exception said that she thought that
“something” was there. As Brown noted, religious congregations generate
high energy crowd activity or candle-lit monotony which tend to invoke a
suggestible state in people that can be exploited. I’m sure similar states
are invoked at political rallies and in the classroom.
==========================================
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
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 Apr 04 2005 - 18:48:27 BST