From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 03:52:42 BST
Rick, Sam and y'all:
RICK said:
I think we already have the evidence. If 'sectarian religion' is a static
*social* fallout from Dynamic Quality (see LILA ch30 p431) and 'theology' is
an *intellectual* pattern (see SODV) then assuming Pirsig didn't change his
mind about something and is not contradicting himself, 'theology' logically
cannot mean 'sectarian religion'.
DMB says:
Right. I think that's really what it comes down to. Is theology a branch of
philosophy or a part of sectarian religion. Sam's view carries alot of
weight here, but think there are contradictions. On the one hand, he says
its not objective or apart from the religion, on the other hand he says
theology students might not have anything to do with the Church and don't
even have to believe it. I hardly know what to do with that. Maybe the
contradictions are inherent in theology itself. ... I can't help but think
how handy it would be if that one word, that one little term, were extracted
from the paper. It would be so convenient to dismiss it as a mistake. But we
don't have to. It still doesn't negate all the assertions about religion we
find in Lila. As you point out, it just means that theology is at a
different level than sectarian religion.
RICK said:
The theologian studies that which the disciple believes. He doesn't learn
'how' or 'what' to think about god, rather, he learns 'how' and 'what'
various given groups think about god. I would think that generally jives
with what Sam means by "A theology student, in my experience, is taught
various ways HOW to think about God." Only I see it as an objective
process, and Sam thinks it's a matter of sectarianism.
DMB says:
Did you earn a degree in theology too? Learning "how and what various given
groups think about god" sure sounds like comparative religious studies to
me. And doesn't that impartial approach conflict with the idea that "the
theologian studies that which the disciple believes"? That sounds far less
"objective" and far more sectarian, don't you think? I think this is worth a
closer look and may even decide the issue for me.
P.S. to the theologians:
Please do not misconstrue the debate as one that decides whether or not
theology is stupid. In the MOQ, to say that something is not intellectual is
not to say something is unintelligent, isn't valuable or anything like that.
Its not about insulting this belief over that belief. Its about making a
distinction. Its about understanding the thing for what it is so as to avoid
misreading it.
Thanks.
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 31 2003 - 03:54:40 BST