Re: MD quality religion

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 20 2004 - 12:55:23 GMT

  • Next message: Richard Loggins: "MD A new stupid pill"

    Platt: IMHO, the MOQ is atheistic to the core.

    DM: Disagree, for me DQ as undefinable, is bringing
    into quality a transcendental aspect, it is then quite possible
    to relate this to other attempts to examine the transcendental,
    and theology and philosophy and religions have all done this.
    Also science, as much cosmology is pretty much metaphysics.
    A more dynamic outlook (i.e. one that gets passed the repression of
    DQ experience brought about by SOM) ceases to find a cosmos of
    material existence, but rather a cosmos of dynamic experience, ceaseslessly
    pouring, flowing, abundant, creative, open to transcendance, where we see
    transcendence as a fountain that gives content to what would otherwise be
    emptiness. Hence, a gift. Hence, we respond with awe. But also, in which
    we participate, because if everything was only SQ why would there be any
    need for consciousness?

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:09 PM
    Subject: Re: MD quality religion

    > Hi Sam,
    >
    > > ..... The fact is, god CAN be used interchangeably with DQ, just like
    tao
    > > can.
    > >
    > > I think the equation of God (or tao) with DQ is a mistake, even leaving
    > > aside theological quibbles. As I understand the MoQ, the equivalent of
    God
    > > (or tao) is Quality - which is then subdivided into dynamic and static,
    and
    > > no subdivision can be the highest term.
    > >
    > > The common lapse into equating dynamic quality with God (or tao)
    reflects
    > > cultural biases in favour of innovation and "progress" rather than
    Pirsig's
    > > own thought, IMHO. What makes a DQ innovation positive rather than
    negative
    > > is precisely its integration with static patterns - so DQ and SQ are
    yoked
    > > together like yin and yang. Pirsig preserves that balance. Many
    > > contributors do not - again, IMHO ;-)
    >
    > I agree that equating DQ with God (or Tao or anything supernatural) is
    > wrong. But I disagree that God can be equated to Quality. IMHO, the MOQ is
    > atheistic to the core. The MOQ provides a naturalistic explanation of
    > reality. There's a natural tendency to ascribe supernatural powers to DQ
    > because it can't be explained in so many words, but neither can energy,
    > that mysterious force that science regards as the ultimate source of
    > everything but is nothing if not natural.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Sat Mar 20 2004 - 13:03:22 GMT