From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 22:04:38 GMT
Dear Platt,
You asked Sam and me 3 Mar 2003 10:08:18 -0500:
'As you two are not shy about professing your religious leanings, I
wonder if you both believe in life after death and if a belief in Christ and
Christianity is required to attain that state? Along that line of inquiry,
what is your assessment of Pirsig's belief in the reincarnation of the
pattern of his son?'
Why do you want Sam and me to repeat our previous views on 'life after
death'? You must remember our discussion last November.
I'll repeat my main contribution back then underneath.
In short:
'Life after death' is for me
1) a contradiction in terms that
2) (because of its logical impossibility) is a metaphor for experience
beyond logic.
Taken literally it is not worth 'believing', i.e. I don't 'trust' to live
again after having died.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
I wrote 29 Nov 2002 08:51:29 +0100:
Dear Platt and Sam,
Platt, I also found your 12/11 11:44 -0500 posting on the spiritual aspects
of the MoQ very interesting.
You are right that I, when I answered Pirsig's questions
('Is reality ultimately reducible to a single underlying substance? If so,
is it essentially spiritual or material?')
didn't answer the second question, because I had answered the first question
negatively.
(My answer was: 'reality can be abstracted to Quality, but this is not
"single" (it is split in DQ and sq at least), it doesn't "underlie" but "is"
perception and it is not "substance"')
The spiritual aspect of metaphysics, religion, art and anything else with
long-lasting appeal is not (should not be?) their reference to an
'underlying spiritual substance of reality', according to me. I agree that
'The fundamental appeal of most [I would say 'all'] religions is precisely
the promise of' a 'beyond', which in some religions is referred to with the
metaphor 'life after death'. I referred to this 'beyond' in earlier postings
on this list as 'Meaning'. See for instance my posting of 9/2 19:56 +0100 in
my 'Is Society Making Progress?' discussion with (it seems) the late Roger.
As I wrote 9/6/-1 20:54 +0200 to Matt K. (and repeated later):
'The main competitor of a MOQ on the meta-level is not SOM but religion.'
As I wrote several times already, art is another competitor (even if
religion functions better in that role for me personally). In that sense
'the "harmony" or "beauty" aspect of life' which you (often) refer to is
also only one of the possible ways of referring to this 'beyond', one of the
possible ways of giving/recognizing Meaning.
Just as for Sam 'life after death' in the sense of 'everlasting life' has no
reality for me. As Sam wrote 28/11 13:07 -0000:
'I don't deny it, it just doesn't mean much to me.'
'Life after death' in the sense of 'eternal life', as Sam described it, has
more reality to me. It is a possible way of describing (also my) mystical
experiences. I fully agree with Sam however that (striving for) mystical
experience is (striving for) an epiphenomenon, it is only a side-effect of a
Meaningful life.
'Patterns' exist in their recognition as such. In that sense Pirsig's 'son's
"larger pattern" survived and was
reincarnated in the birth of his daughter, Nell': he recognized aspects of
his son (or of his son's role in his life?!) in his daughter. Nell restored
some Meaning to his life.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Mar 03 2003 - 22:03:54 GMT