Re: MD confused; take action

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 09:37:14 GMT

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Language in the MOQ"

    On 27 Nov 2003 at 18:33, Steve Peterson wrote:

    > Hi Nathan, David,

    > Nathan said:
    > > "Volumes line library shelves in which human authors have described
    > > what they call "the Doctrine of God"
     
    > David M said:
    > > And as you hint mystics and others have written as many volumes that
    > > agree with your proposition that the Being of God cannot be
    > > conceptualised or described but you can dance all round the reality
    > > of unconceptualisable dynamic quality.
     
    > What seems like an important difference between the two camps is that
    > on the conceptualized God side every religion has something different
    > to say about what God is and what God's will is while the mystics in
    > every religion seem to all be saying the same thing, so I tend to
    > think there is something to what the mystics say.

    All
    I did not know what message to hijack, but I must point to the MOQ
    being a METAPHYSICS: the greatest ordering of reality there is and
    no religion - or sect - and does not deliver "how/what to do" answers,
    thanks God :-).

    It treats religion in the sense of seeing the revelationary kind -
    Judaism, early Christianity Islam ...etc as (social) myths, but NOT in
    the SOM sense of being "just" ...inventions, fairy-tales ...etc. but as a
    value level patterns , transcended by intellect, yet an important part of
    existence, as real as the other levels.

    DMB (23 Nov.)

    > myths really are. Once we take a look at that, it becomes very clear that
    > myths were never intended as a means for the investigation of nature or as
    > any kind of scientific explanation of the world. Instead, we can see that
    > the cosmology stories serve a psychological function, they help the
    > individual understand his function and place in the society. Pirsig's
    > social level is larger than mythology, but is extremely helpful, maybe
    > even essential, to understanding what he's refering to.

    This is the hardest point in understanding the MOQ: If one insist on
    religions either being objectively TRUE or subjective nonsense, then
    one is in SOM and sees reality through its S/O glasses.

    However, there are other religions than the Semitic ones - Buddhism
    and Taoism preferably - and as I understand it, Pirsig sees these as
    some proto-MOQs arrived at long since. In my opinion Christianity is
    by now in some quasi socio-intellectual stage: one camp drops
    reason, while the other tries to find proofs for it (evolutionary).
    According to LILA's RTA part the intellectual stage was arrived at -
    and transcended - by Eastern tradition, thus the sojourn in intellect for
    Christianity better be a short one.

    In my opinion
    Bo

    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 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 09:39:24 GMT