From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 15 2005 - 19:50:37 BST
At 11:19 AM 7/15/2005, you wrote:
>Arlo,
>I guess the point of my post wasn't clear enough?
>The reason that I sent this post was because I wanted thoughts on this
>question: I am having trouble reconciling this side of Pirsig with
>statements such as e.g. saying faith was a "willingness to believe in
>falsehoods." What does willingness to believe in falsehoods mean exactly
>if "All this is an analogy".
>You have answered that the problem is within religion the bickering over
>the "truth" of their analogies. Yes that is a problem but is not what I
>am asking about.
Hi Erin,
Your point was clear, maybe my answer was not direct enough. I see a
"willingness to believe in falsehoods" a necessary outgrowth of "all this
is an analogy". I mean this in the sense that these analogies are not
"truth", and yet we must use them. Indeed, it is the core of our
Quality-experiential derived language-culture (semiotic system).
Thus, according to my view, one must "believe in falsehoods" in order to
begin the ascension to higher forms of thinking (which are dependent on
static-latching in a semiotic environment). But, the danger as Pirsig
points out is when these "falsehoods" begin to be reconceptualized as
"objective truth", outside of experience and as more than analogues.
Does that make any sense to you?
> Let me put this way when people at this site are on their anti-religion
> tirades I don't see how it is not part of the "coercive force" you mention.
The "coercive force", in this particular case, is the "solidification of
analogy into 'truth'". It takes the focus of the "Dynamic, unknowable, One"
and places the entire emphasis on the static, and culturally-derived,
social patterns that are the analogy. In all the cases I've seen on this
list, and admittedly I may have missed some, the argument is degenerate
when one argues that "my static social analogues are truth and yours are
false". Ultimately, this is a no-win argument.
Is God the "Christian God" or the "Muslim God"? The "Buddha God"? The Pagan
Pantheon? This is, in my little humble opinion, a huge waste of time and
mental resources. All of these are analogies for describing the "source"
(Quality) that have developed over centuries of socio-historical,
culturally-embedded peoples. When I've seen anyone go an an "anti-religion
tirade", it is against this type of static-analogy Glorification.
That individuals, such as yourself, use religion to forge a better
understanding of the world for yourself, who has a problem with that? When
you (not that you have) begin to tell me your analogies are "right" and
mine are "wrong", then I will certainly take exception.
Arlo
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 Jul 15 2005 - 21:29:10 BST