From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 02:07:25 GMT
Mark,
Mark 7-12-03: Hello Scott, You cannot be a Christian without believing
in God. As far as i know, that is the state of the matter. The Buddha
did not believe in God, as far as i know, that is the state of the
matter.
[Scott:]You are concerned with how people may or may not be "open to the
MOQ". Since the only people likely to be are intellectuals, then if you
wonder whether or not a Christian might be open, you need to restrict
your attention to intellectual Christians -- and of course the same with
Buddhists. For an intellectual Christian the word "God" is a minefield,
so much so, that the statement "God exists" does not have a simple
answer. For example, the pseudo-Dionysius said that God was "beyond
being". Is something that is "beyond being" all that different from
"emptiness"? That is why one cannot simply say of an intellectual
Christian that he or she "believes in God". Most likely they would say
"yes", but most likely -- always excepting the fundamentalists -- they
would not thereby find Pirsig's concept of Quality in conflict.
Scott [prev]P.S. I find it ironic that you think better of Buddhism than
Christianity because a "Buddhist may be more open to the MoQ", but then
flame those who disagree with you, as you did with Bo and as you are now
doing with Matt.
Mark 7-12-03: I do not know what Bo or Matt think regarding this issue?
But i am not talking to them, i am talking to you, unless of course you
feel it to be your responsibility to talk for other people - a trait i
find disturbing and a bit fascistic.
But I had something to say to you. I find posts in which you tell people
to "piss off", or to accuse people of racism or psychological failings
(as you have posted to me) to not only be a case of lowering the tone of
the discussion group, which is of concern to all of us, but also to be
immoral in MOQian terms, as Pirsig put it (LC #140)"
"To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that the person who makes
it is stupid. This is the ad hominem argument: meaning, "to the person".
Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and you argue
that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does this
tell us of the condition of the sun?
"That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic
texts say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what
may be an original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a
form of evil."
[Mark:]But look here, we have wandered way from the issue, which is
typical of your correspondence.
The issue is one of faith - does faith flavour rational enquiry?
Christians hold a faith, Buddhists do not.
[Scott] It takes faith to keep one's butt on the meditation cushion for
hours a day. One does so because one has faith that doing so leads to
Nirvana.I have never heard of a Buddhist who questioned the Buddha's
four Noble Truths.
[Mark] Therefore, if faith flavours rational enquiry, and as Buddhists
do not hold such faith, Buddhists may be more open to more flavours of
rational enquiry. I think in MoQ terms you will find that to be a
conflict between social and intellectual endeavours?
[Scott] Catholic theology has always held the position that reason
cannot be in conflict with faith, and has always -- officially --
encouraged rational inquiry. In practice, you are of course correct that
there have been conflicts between the social and the intellectual among
Christians. But also among Buddhists. Many Zen monks in Japan are
time-servers -- officiating at weddings and so forth, while just going
through the motions. What I am saying is that the important differences
are not between religions, but between groups within each religion. Just
as a fundamentalist Christian has more -- in MOQ terms -- in common with
a fundamentalist Buddhist, so do intellectual Christians with
intellectual Buddhists.
[Mark] Now you are going to ask what, 'Flavouring' rationality means
aren't you, because you have not been listening?
[Scott] Why the dig? See above.
[Mark] 'Flavour' is a word i believe we may both understand to indicate
preference. How do we preference our rational enquiry? We do that
because rationality is an aesthetic intellectual sense and therefore
creative - if we could not preference our rational enquiry, we would all
be robots following one rational.
To sum up, the aesthetic of rational enquiry may be influenced by faith.
[Scott] I don't disagree, but I doubt that there can be any rational
enquiry that is not influenced by some faith or other, called
presuppositions, or choice of what one will enquire about. Since
Christians are very concerned with morality, I would think they would
find the MOQ to be of interest.
[Mark] And to add, an antidote to faith may be scepticism, but how far
can a Christian sceptic push scepticism before faith is called into
question? You know, it's a matter of static patterning!
[Scott] Quite far. Again, look at Cupitt. Or consider how much ink is
spent by Christian theologians on asking "what is faith?".
Scott [prev]:
I would think, given the MOQ, that you would have more respect for
intellectual differences, and not characterize them as conspiracies or
psychological failings.
Mark 7-12-03: Humans do have failings and do play games as a matter of
life. If you don't know this then go back to your ickle wickle bubble
and donny wonny wowy aboush it.
[Scott] Yes, we all have failings, but I think the Pirsig quote above
indicates pretty clearly that we should make an effort to keep personal
attacks out of intellectual discussions, as a matter of morality.
- Scott
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 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 08:38:08 GMT