From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:28:24 GMT
Hi Leland,
>> Leland said:
>> ... 'god' is simply a word then you will see there is no point in
>> getting uptight about it.
>>
>> Steve said:
>> To you and me, God is a concept. To many others, saying so is
>> blasphemy. Using the word around such people is dangerous business.
>> You're likely to be misunderstood.
>
Leland said:
> That's their problem, not mine.
I see being understood when I want to communicate as my problem.
> I am more than happy to expound on my concept of 'god' to them, they
> choose to ignore it. To paraphrase Pirsig, the truth knocks on the
> door and they say "Go away, I HAVE the truth." And so it goes away.
It sounds like you feel that you know that truth about what the word
'god' means while you also say that others who have a different concept
of what 'god' means feel that they have the truth as well. I don't
know how to decide who has the correct definition of 'god.' Can you
help me?
>
>>
>> Equating God with DQ is problematic for still other reasons even in
>> our discussion group. The concept of God generally includes the idea
>> of an intelligent being who purposefully makes decisions while Pirsig
>> resists such anthropomorhization and hypostatizing in his concept of
>> DQ.
>
> Again, this is because of the intellectual loading of the word 'god'
> that theologists have done. When you disregard this loading of the
> word, you see that it can simply be a term for the transcendent.
Sure, it could be used that way, but few people do. I don't think you
can distinguish between what a word means and how it is used. As I
recall English dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive.
> The reason god was anthropomorphized in the first place is because
> humans generally have a problem conceptualizing abstracts. The heavier
> the abstract idea is, the tougher time we have wrapping our heads
> around it. So, we coin language to describe it. The problems arise
> when people treat the language as the thing being described.
>
It sounds like you are doing just that when you say "god was
anthropomorphized." You mean there was a concept called god that was
later altered to reflect humanity? When was the word 'god' ruined?
I would agree with relating (rather than equating) DQ and God as both
are concepts with referents that are by definition beyond conception;
however, their use is different enough that I can only imagine
misunderstanding if you try to use them interchangeably.
But I do think you can keep both words. Because DQ is not
anthropomorphic it is a better basis for philosophy, but it doesn't
make for as good poetry as God.
Walter Kauffman in his introduction to philosopher Martin Buber’s “I
and Thou” makes the case for using the word “God”:
“If one no longer has use for the word “God”… ...why use religious
terms? Indeed it might be better not to use them because they are
always misunderstood. But what other terms are there? We need a new
language, and new poets to create it, and new ears to listen to it.
Meanwhile, if we shut our ears to the old prophets who still speak more
or less in the old tongues, using ancient words, occasionally in new
ways, we shall have very little music. We are not so rich that we can
do without tradition. Let him that has new ears listen to it in a new
way.”
I agree with Kauffman that it is worth trying to work with the word
'god' from an artistic point of view, but as an intellectual pattern it
is of lower quality than DQ.
Regards,
Steve
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 Mar 19 2004 - 00:42:54 GMT