From: jc (jcpryor@nccn.net)
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 09:02:47 BST
>>
>
>dmb says:
> I think everyone learns something when they are pressed to make a
>case and this is one of the main reasons that vigorous debate is so
>healthy. And I have tons of fun taking on theists like yourself, but
>I also emphatically agree with Ian on this point. As I understand
>it, any attempt to re-assert theism into the MOQ would only
>demonstrate a lack of comprehension. It makes no philosophical sense
>to do so no matter how you slice it. It would make about as much
>sense as trying to re-assert objectivity or materialism. Either move
>would only be an attempt to re-introduce the very things the MOQ
>seeks to overcome. Its a case of presenting the disease as if it
>were a cure. Its quackery. Its not that I wish to ban dissenters or
>excommunicate the MOQ heretics, its just a matter of wasting time on
>hopeless projects when we should be way past all that by now. That's
>why "drag" is exactly the right word for it.
Greetings David,
I agree. Of course asserting any theism into MoQ would be
degenerate. But I believe there is great value in using the MoQ to
assert Quality into religion. There is so much bad quality religion
out there that it's scary. It makes people do crazier things than
fly planes into building, believe me.
To my mind, Pirsig's great contribution wasn't any particular
philosophy or static latch we can all hold onto, theistic or
atheistic. It was a way of juggling all these modern competeing
philosophies and giving us a way to judge. An enquiry into values is
the exact medicine value-free society needs. From amongst so many
choices, how does one begin to even start?
Quality is real. Good is a noun. There are better and worse aspects
of all modern religions, cults, sciences and philosophies, having
faith that there is good and it matters enough to try for it, to
examine and seek, - this sounds religious, but I think of it as a way
of evaluation rather than religion. I'd certainly want to resist any
dogmatic definition of Quality as either theistic or atheistic. I
guess the MoQ is atheistic in the sense that in this multicultural
world of ours, in order to examine or choose theistic beliefs, you
need the intellectual tools to make this choice and if your tools are
alrealy slanted toward or away from one way or belief, then they
wouldn't be any good.
But I'd argue also that discussions of how to bring quality into
religion is an excellent discussion topic from a pragmatic view that
the vast majority of the population does hold theistic views and
there are aspects of the MoQ that could really benefit the world.
Go with God my friend,
jc tongue firmly in cheek
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 : Sun Aug 07 2005 - 09:20:40 BST