From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 02:21:28 GMT
DMB,
> DMB says:
> Father and son are DQ and sq? Huh? No, I don't think the trinity is
> analogous to the MOQ for the simple reason that three ain't two. And the
MOQ
> really is a monism, the Dynamic/static split only being an analytical
slice.
> Beside the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, there is also Mary the mother,
which
> gives us a fourth. No. I'm afraid the Christian trinity and the MOQ's
> divisions are compatible only by way of the most painful contortions. I
can
> almost hear your spine breaking as you bend over backwards to make it fit.
> In any case, the main point of making a distinction between mythic and
> intellectual thinking is to point out the two ways to read such doctrines;
> the former as an actuality and the later as a symbol. This is precisely
the
> confusion that causes the literalistic and fundamentalist religions of our
> time.
I think you are somewhat guilty here of Campbell's criticism:
> As Campbell
> points out, the atheist and the religious believer are both wrong insofar
as
> the both mistake myths for facts.
Christianity calls God three-in-one, and in the MOQ there is Quality/DQ/SQ.
Both triples are very important in that it prevents one from objectifying
the central "concept" of their respective metaphysics. The Catholic
magisterium (what the bishops in council decide on doctrinally speaking) was
very careful to declare as heresy an interpretation of the trinity as
polytheism (there are three gods) or modalism (there are three aspects to
God). In other words, if you think you understand the trinity, you are
wrong. This is not mythical thinking, but very careful intellectual
activity. As I've suggested before, it can only be approached (but still not
understood) with the logic of contradictory identity. The same goes for
approaching Quality, DQ, and SQ. What I would *not* do, though, is try to
align the MOQ triple with the Christian. My point, though, is to agree with
Sam that Christian theology is a thoroughly intellectual activity. (N.b,
that bit on the magisterium's position on the trinity I got from Robert
Magliola's book "Derrida on the Mend", which I've recommended a couple of
times as showing the value of postmodernism *if* one goes beyond it to
mysticism.)
And I think you are off track in saying:
>I think its clear that the MOQ makes intellectual sense
> of "original sin" by describing it as biological quality, which is rightly
> kept under control by social codes.
Maybe Pirsig holds with this (I can't remember his mentioning original sin),
but if so I would say he is wrong as well. Original sin is the state of
being *cut off* from Quality, which -- if one has faith in Quality -- should
tell one that one is insane (out of touch with Reality). Hence I have
adopted the phrase "ironic metaphysics", to constantly remind myself of the
contingency of any formulation I might adopt. Becoming sane is, of course,
mystical awakening. Without that, one's social and intellectual activity is
always to some extent off track.
- Scott
>
> Johnny moral said:
> And isn't the Fall analogous to the arrival of the intellect, or perhaps
the
>
> social level (we're still debating those), and leaving the biological
bliss
> behind? Isn't it more than an analogy, but a literal description of what
> happened (perhaps apart from Satan the talking snake, God walking around
> looking for them, etc, which are colorful and efficient ways of describing
> the cause and effect of knowledge on people.)
>
> DMB says:
> Pirsig takes this on directly. in chapter 24 he doesn't use the phrase
"the
> fall", but he refers specifically to "original sin", which is an
intimately
> related concept and part of the same doctrine. He mentions this in the
> context of a fair and impartial re-examination of "the old Puritan and
> Victorian social codes". When these codes are "dusted off" to to see what
> they were trying to do, we are operating at the intellectual level. The
> codes are read as SYMBOLS, not as actual events. They no longer operate AS
> myths. Again, this confusion marks death of the religions of the modern
age.
>
>
> "Biological quality is necessary to the survival of life. But when it
> threatens to dominate and destroy society, biological quality becomes evil
> itself, the 'Great Satan" of 20th century Western culture. One reason why
> fundamentalist Moslem cultures have become so fanatic in their hatred of
the
> West is that it has released the biological forces of evil that Islam has
> fought for centuries to control. ... Suddenly we have come full circle at
> the Anmerican culture's founders, the Puritans, and their overwhelming
> concern with 'original sin' and release from it. The mythology by which
they
> explained this original sin seems no longer useful in a scientific world,
> but when we look at the things in their contemporary society they
identified
> with this original sin we see something remarkable. Drinking, dancing,
sex,
> playing the fiddle, gambling, idleness: these are BIOLOGICAL pleasures.
> Early puritan morals were largely a suppression of biological quality. In
> the MOQ the old Puritan dogma is gone but its practical moral
pronouncements
> are explained in a way that makes sense." (Emphasis is Pirsig's.)
>
> DMB continues:
> See? The mythology is not useful in a scientific world. Puritan dogma is
> gone. But we can still re-examine them and glean the moral practicality in
a
> way that makes sense. This kind of intellectual refinement is what
prevents
> us from either rejecting or accepting myth and dogma blindly. As Campbell
> points out, the atheist and the religious believer are both wrong insofar
as
> the both mistake myths for facts. To the atheists, the facts are not true.
> To the believer, the facts are true. But the fact is that myths are not
> facts. In any case, I think its clear that the MOQ makes intellectual
sense
> of "original sin" by describing it as biological quality, which is rightly
> kept under control by social codes.
>
> Of course, its more complicated than that. Both the fall and original sin
> are part of the Garden of Eden and that, in turn, is part of the creation
> story. As a guy very interested in mythology, I could go on and on, but I
> won't.
>
> Thanks for your time.
> DMB
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Mar 23 2003 - 02:22:03 GMT