From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 19:42:54 GMT
Hi
Lelanmd: I'd say it is thus: Theology
professes to know the underlying "Truth" of the universe, where
philosophy doesn't. Discuss.
DM: Totally false. Much of philosophy has been about truth
in some form or other. Also, some theology sees God as undefinable
and therefore faith replaces truth. The difference between the two is
that one is more likely to discuss god than the other. For me, and
Pirsig accepts the possibility, when we consider the most forceful
aspects of experience/quality i.e. SQ/DQ we are pretty likely to
have some of the feelings towards DQ that many have had towards
god. Is a genuine experience of god really better put as an experience of
DQ?
For me, the pushing of aside of SOM makes a form of sacred thinking more
likely and that might just stop us destroying the planet. It is only SOM
that leads us to secular thinking, so with MOQ is it time for some
post-secular
thinking? Perhaps after religion and science something new emerges that
goes beyond both?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leland Jory" <ljory@mts.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Islam
> Khalil wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I am slightly concerned about the view expressed by Khoo and others that
the
> >only value within religion is its mystical dimension, the rest is some
sort
> >of social/intellectual construct that tends to do more harm than good.
> >
> I'll agree that religion in general falls under the heading of "static
> pattern of social value", but its subjective value is just that,
subjective.
>
> > The
> >fact is that a true religion is a source of guidance, understanding and
> >meaning for man on every level and in every sphere and in every domain of
> >human interaction and knowledge.
> >
> Here, I'd disagree. You may be confusing religion (lives at the social
> level) with theology (lives at the intellectual level). Religion does
> provide a static pattern of value for societies. The problem is when the
> static patterns become impervious to the evolutionary forces of DQ.
>
> >Duality/Unity- Of course if one really goes beyond duality to the Unity
then
> >everything disappears but the One!
> >
> You can still maintain some duality by remembering that it is the One
> (DQ) that creates awareness of subjects and objects. The duality is
> still there, it has just dropped down a level in the hierarchy.
>
> > If there's only light without shade we
> >see nothing but light. The same applies to language. Without language
> >there is no understanding of what we are witnessing/experiencing.
> >
> The problem with language is, it is always insufficient to describe
> reality (especially when you get into the realms of philosophy).
> Remember the parallel drawn with the Tao in ZMM: "The Quality which can
> be named is not the eternal Quality". The words are merely conventions
> so that people may understand each other.
>
> >Religion/Philosophy-One of the main differences between the 2 is the
belief
> >within religion of a world beyond the sensory world, whole hierarchal
realms
> >of existence beyond what we can perceive or rationalise. "There's more
in
> >heaven and earth than ever dreamt of in your philosophy
Horatio"-Shakespeare
> >
> >
> I'll assume you mean theology and not religion. Religion is to theology
> as the frame of a house is to its doors, windows, and paint colors. One
> provides the underlying structure where the other provides the details.
> As for the main difference between the two, I'd say it is thus: Theology
> professes to know the underlying "Truth" of the universe, where
> philosophy doesn't. Discuss.
>
> >Roger Bacon (not to be confused with Francis) an early English
philosopher
> >believed that the 2 had to be treated separately as fields of knowledge.
> >His views essentially held sway within English philosophy until the
> >renaissance. But in England religion=church doctrine/dogma. Once
science
> >undermined the church doctrine then religion died as an earnest pursuit
of
> >knowledge and the rational philosopher scientists held sway.
> >
> >
> Theology and Philosophy probably should be treated separately, though
> there can be some overlap. The only real conflict appears when you bring
> 'god' into the discussion. Many philosophers seem to be agnostic (at
> most), and this point is where I've seen the largest butting of heads.
> Regarding Dogma, IMO dogma is what happens when static q-social patterns
> resist DQ changes. That being said, I do see the original value in
> religion (not theology), as it can be seen as the static latch after the
> evolution from primitive q-social patterns. I just wonder if maybe it
> has outlived much of its usefulness.
>
> >Doctrine/dogma is a fixed and static interpretation of scripture but we
> >should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just
> >because the interpretation is false or outdated does not mean that the
> >source is false.
> >
> Since the 'source' is Quality, I can't argue here.
>
>
> --
> Leland Jory :^{)>
> Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher
>
> "It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go
> away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." -
> Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
>
>
>
> 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 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 20:23:51 GMT