RE: MD quality religion

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 29 2004 - 01:05:39 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?"

    Wim and all MOQers:

    Wim said:
    Personal experience and practical application is preferred over theology
    however. The defining characteristics of Quakers are more in the ..methods
    than in any content, except for that original idea -worded in very diverse
    ways, however- of the accessibility for all of direct Guidance.

    dmb says:
    Oh, now I see. I'd been wondering why you kept insisting that religions
    should be judged by their methods rather than by their content. I could see
    any good reason for that and was going to ask why in the world we should
    exclude content. But now I see that you were trying to rig the contest in
    your favor. You're a very naughty philospher, Wim. That's cheating and you
    know it. Besides, I thought we already agreed that it was a religion's
    ability to help its members 'hear the music' for themselves? Here's how it
    went down on the 14th. I said...

    "If the task of religion is to guide a soul toward the point where he or she
    can hear the music for themselves, (and I think that IS the primary purpose
    of religion.) then surely the quality of each religion should be ranked and
    measured by how well it achieves that task. By that standard, Western
    religions have failed. If there is one that can be said to function at all,
    I would very much like to know about it."

    And you agreed by saying:
    I agree with your criterium for good religion. In my presentation of
    Quakerism I hope to show that not all Western religions have failed. If you
    disagree: what keeps you from nominating a non-Western religion?

    dmb continues in the present:
    This metaphor of hearing the music was fully explained, in a lenghty post
    using numerous sources who all said the same thing as Pirsig, that Western
    religions tend to shut out DQ rather than lead one toward it. It was also
    pretty clear, I thought, that hearing the music for yourself is a metaphor
    for having a mystical experience. But apparently that is not what you were
    really agreeing with. Its fairly clear that from the bulk of your
    description that we're not talking about the same thing at all - or hardly
    at all. And in the closing paragraph you choose to actually mock the idea.
    The Quaker enviroment is described as one that is "skeptical of anyone who
    pretends that religion can be a simple practising of existing methods that
    reliably precipitate a mystical experience."...

    Wim said:
    "Quaker religious practices can add the opportunity to share with others
    what you find in an environment that is sympathetic to any 'seeker' or
    'student of religion' and skeptical of anyone who pretends that religion can
    be a simple practising of existing methods that 'reliably precipitate a
    mystical experience'.

    dmb continues:
    Whew. I removed two parenthetical statements and it still takes quite a lung
    full of air to get it all out in one breath. I don't mean to be nit picky or
    complain about mere style, but its pretty easy to get lost in sentences that
    long. May I suggest you learn to love the period and the paragraph. Fight
    the urge to say everything at once. Just a suggestion. Anyway, back to the
    topic... After declaring that Quakerism is skeptical of practicing methods
    that precipitate a mystical experience, you follow it immediately with..

    Wim said:
    Quakerism is BOTH profoundly mystical, experience-based, AND practical, bent
    on 'letting your life speak'.

    dmb says:
    How can Quakerism be both profoundly mystical and experience based, but
    skeptical of practicing methods that are aimed at having a mystical
    experience? How is this not a direct self contradiction? I don't know, Wim.
    I see game rigging, back tracking and contradictions all over this thing.
    You're very nice and polite about it, but in terms of actual content you're
    just breaking too many rules here. Is it possible that you love her too
    much? Is is possible that you'd lie and cheat to protect her? Seek guidence
    on that matter, will you brother?

    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 : Mon Mar 29 2004 - 01:08:02 BST