From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Jul 16 2005 - 05:14:53 BST
Arlo,
Let me try one more time.. From the faith thread I thought the argument put forth was that faith had no place in the MOQ...it was low quality stuff because it was a willingness to believe in falsehoods.
To me your argument that "one must believe in falsehoods" just seems inconsistent with that stance.
I don't remember even anyone talking is it a Christian God, Muslim God, etc. ever so don't why that keeps coming up ? Your comment about me finding religion valuable for understanding the world just shows to me that we are just talking past each other because that is not it....it is just that the attacks against religion that I saw in the faith thread seemed to me to be very similar to the attacks seen within religion when their analogies are not recognized as such. I still think that these attacks stem from the same coercive force but I see you see it differently.
Erin
ARLO: 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 : Sat Jul 16 2005 - 05:20:22 BST