From: Leland Jory (ljory@mts.net)
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 13:25:26 GMT
Wim, you're right. I was getting off thread there. So, I'm starting a
new thread on this.
I said:
>> Religion, IMO, is simply a complex combination of static (mainly)
>> q-social and (partly) q-intellectual patterns. Where most religions
>> seem to go wrong is, they stop responding to DQ.
Matt replied:
> Yes, don't you think though that almost anything in life can turn into
> this? Maritial Arts for example is a way of life for some people. It
> holds the same qualities you listed (a complex combination of static
> patterns, social, and partly intellectual patterns). Yet some arts
> focus on building DQ from the SQ. I do agree with you that most
> religions stop responding to DQ, but not all. I guess IMO anything
> can turn into a religion in the sense that you described it, and would
> this be bad as long as the DQ kept flowing?
What I was talking about was when the static structure becomes so
central that no change is possible. True, some religions aren't as
DQ-blind but many of the mainstream ones are.
> This forum is a perfect example (not to knock it at all, I love
> reading in here) but we may have people that live by the MOQ that you
> could consider it a religion to them. I guess now then the argument
> turns to definitions of religion, but that fact of that matter is that
> people exist in this forum that will fight for this philosophy to the
> ground.
I suppose the difference here is: We're right ;^{)>. Seriously, though.
We argue in favor of the MOQ because it seems to encompass all other
religions and philosophies (and science and art as well). I would argue
that anyone who has turned the MOQ into a religion has missed the point
of the MOQ. Any takers?
> Many academic philosophers completly ignore DQ. All they really do is
> sit around waiting to shoot somebody else's work down, while never
> allowing their own work to grow. Don't get me wrong DQ can stem from
> a debate about the MOQ and other metaphysics, that's what we do here.
> You can learn more about your beliefs or values by defending them.
> Let me know what ya think
I disagree. As soon as you take too strong a defensive stance, you've
already missed the DQ boat. Being open to DQ is all about being open to
new experience. If you put a wall around the MOQ and feel the need to
defend it, then you're no longer responding to DQ. All you're doing is
clinging to a particular set of static value patterns.
--
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 26 2004 - 13:27:10 GMT