From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 09:12:33 BST
Hi Rick, all,
> Thanks for the detailed responses. I've been piecing my replies
> together in my spare time over the last few days (please forgive me if
they
> feel a bit 'disjointed' in places, but I'm spread pretty thin timewise
right
> now). If anything here has been answered by one of your more recent
posts,
> please forgive me. Moreover, for anyone else to whom I owe a reply (Scott
> R, Platt, Johnny, etc?), once again I appeal to your patience.
I'm not sure forgiveness is needed (if it is, it's certainly offered) -
after all, aren't we here to have a bit of exploratory fun and learning? I
think we've come a long way away from Pirsig, though, and I'm not sure it's
down to me to completely justify an entire system of thought. But hey, I'll
have a go ("It's you and me against the world - when do we start?")
> RICK
> On reading this, the first thing I wondered was if the only difference
> between 'apatheia' and 'science' is that they study different objects then
> how can one be trivial and the other not trivial? It must have something
to
> do with the nature of the 'object' being studied. That is, the 'object'
of
> apatheia must somehow lend itself better to 'objective' study than the
> 'objects' of science do. But in your last post you implied that the
> 'object' of apatheia was god (or DQ). The 'objects' of science (i think
we
> agreed) are static patterns. This would all add up to saying that god (or
> DQ) is better suited for objective study than static patterns. But that
> seems backwards to me. Moreover, later in the post you wrote "Science is
> tremendously powerful in certain restricted areas." Is science "trivial"
> even in the areas in which it is "tremendously powerful"? How can
something
> 'tremendously powerful' be considered 'trivial'?
As I understand it, Christian apatheia gets its point from being one element
in a more comprehensive system. The current Modernist assumptions (which are
really the windmills that I'm tilting at) see science as the be-all and
end-all. (DMB rejects that, by the way - where do you stand?)
> RICK
> I don't know Sam. Even granting everything you say about it, it sounds to
> me like apatheia, at most, *resembles* science, maybe in the way a child
> resembles an adult.
I think the relationship is more that science was one of the children who
has now become an obnoxious teenager... ;-)
> RICK
> Perhaps objectivity was born of apatheia to study DQ, but when it was
> realized what phenomenal things could be achieved by applying objectivity
to
> the study of static patterns, the child grew up.
I think it was the motivation that changed more than anything else.
> RICK
> Fair enough. I'll not ask you to defend it again. However, I would ask
you
> to consider the statistics recently posted by DMB in this thread. I think
> the fundamentalist view of Christianity is far more widespread than you
like
> to admit (perhaps because you're so tired of having to separate yourself
> from them you've decided to ignore them instead?).
I've commented on the stats to DMB, but yes, I am surprised by how prevalent
fundamentalist views are. I think the situation in England is very different
(although we're probably becoming more like the US in that regard). And
yes - I often do try to ignore them...
> RICK
> In what ways is God 'broader' than DQ? Do you see what I'm asking? If DQ
is
> one aspect of God, what are some of the other aspects? Moreover, how would
> you respond to this...[CAMPBELL]
As a rough and ready rule of thumb, I'm equating DQ to 'Holy Spirit' - which
still leaves 2/3rds of the Trinity to be accounted for. I made some initial
comments on the Campbell to DMB.
> RICK
> I didn't mean 'shoulds' like that (as in 'normative judgments about
> behavior'). I meant in the sense of what we 'should believe', about which
> science says plenty. Should we believe that Pons and Fleischmann
discovered
> 'cold fusion'? Science would say no, because no evidence supports the
> assertion. Should we believe that if you fly a plane into the side of a
> crowded skyscraper you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven? Science
> would say no, because no evidence supports the assertion.
Fair enough, but I don't think it gets you very far.
> RICK
> No. I'm saying they might have been put off if they were less willing to
> accept some arbitrary assertions of fact about the afterlife on faith and
> without evidence.
I think it's a bit more complex than simply a debate about 'facts'...
> RICK
> It almost sounds as if you're blaming 9/11 on science rather than
religious
> fundamentalism. Do you think that's really a tenable position? What
> percentage of suicide bombers have been religious extremists? Or more to
> the point, what percentage of suicide bombers haven't been religious
> extremists? Now, what percentage of scientists are suicide bombers?
I certainly don't intend to blame science for 9/11, and if I gave that
impression, my apologies (and to any scientists out there - I'm not hostile,
honest!). I think that Modernism has something to answer for though.
> SAM
> > Wonderful - that, plus the agreement on what emotions are makes me think
> > that there is huge scope for agreement, once we've thrashed things
> through.
>
> RICK
> I see agreement in many areas of our thoughts (though some differences
> obviously as well). I wonder how deep the differences really run.
That is what I get excited about (and is, in fact, why I keep on talking to
DMB, coz I think there are lots of agreements obscured by our regular
quarrels). I think the Campbell quotes - like the Kingsley book - might help
us forward. Basically I think that if 1. a person doesn't see science as
providing all the answers to life and 2. sees mythologies as providing
something essential to life then the issue is just *which* "myths to live
by". That's what I think is the really interesting question. Most of the
rest is detail.
> RICK
> I thought that's what you meant when you called objectivity "an attempt to
> make our judgments less dependent on personal preference...", "...an
> emotional distancing which is geared around getting a clearer view of the
> matter at hand..." The 'emotions' that objectivity seeks to strip away
are
> surely (in MoQ parlance) social patterns, no? Which means that the
> 'emotions' that must be re-engaged in answering 'our most fundamental and
> interesting questions' must also be social patterns, no?
No - I don't think emotions are social level patterns. In 'classic' MoQ
terms, I think they are transitive across the levels.
> RICK
> Agreed. It has always been my belief that the difference between
knowledge
> and wisdom is that wisdom cares... How does that sound to you?
I'm happy with that.
> SAM
> Faith is a virtue, like courage, not a belief system or a set of
> > propositions.
>
> RICK
> According to this, it's both or either...
>
> AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY
> FAITH - Noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness
of
> a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
> material evidence. See synonyms at belief. , trust. 3. Loyalty to a person
> or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith
> Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a
> trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the
> Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
>
> RICK
> A virtue defined as *secure belief* in God? What kind of virtue is that?
> Sounds like knowledge assumed without evidence to me. How come it's not
> virtuous to believe in other things without evidence (like Leprechauns and
> Goblins)?
Definition 4 is OK - the ambiguity is about the word 'belief', though,
because I would deny that the essence of Christian faith is a matter of, how
shall I put it, your brain having certain cognitive contents. It's about the
orientation of a life towards certain values. Besides which, Leprechauns and
Goblins can be defined, God can't.
> SAM
> Our fundamental intellectual stance is not a matter of
> > rational enquiry.
>
> RICK
> Then what do consider to be the nature of metaphysics? What is LILA?
Perhaps that was poorly phrased. I mean that our fundamental intellectual
stance does not rest on rational foundations. We are able to enquire into
them, just not 'independently' validate them (what criteria are being used -
and why?).
Cheers
Sam
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 Apr 07 2003 - 09:12:02 BST