From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 11 2004 - 02:18:44 BST
Sam and all:
Sam said:
I can't present an argument for Christianity independently of how I
understand the MoQ - because my
argument can't be separated from that account (I can't argue for how
Christianity can be integrated
with a 'standard' MoQ if I don't believe that can be done - and how could I
argue for something I
don't believe in, other than as an academic exercise?
dmb says:
If I follow, you're saying that Christianity can't be "integrated" into
Pirsig's MOQ, but it can be "integrated" into your understanding or your
version of the same. Is that right? And may I assume that the version of
Christianity you're integrating is the church in which you are employed? And
may I assume that you are not very gainfully employed? ;-) Ha! I haven't
taken a vow of poverty, but it sure has worked out that way! Just kidding.
Sam said:
How I understand the MoQ still has four levels (if not more) - inorganic,
organic, social and
eudaimonic. Of particular concern are the last two, which I see in the
following ways: the social is
the realm of our language, our forms of life, and the realm of mythology. It
is the level of the
stories that we live by. The eudaimonic is the realm of individual
judgement, including (but not
restricted to) the discriminating intellect, which can perceive the social
patterns it observes.
dmb says:
This is so much like the MOQ that I think it would hardly be different from
keeping "intellectual" as the name of the fourth level and simply insisting
that intellect level includes individual judgement and is not otherwise so
limited. But there's more to the name "eudaimonic" than just that....
Sam asked:
So the question for me is: which mythology allows for the full flourishing
of the fourth level, or,
in other words, which social level pattern allows people to hear the music
for themselves?
dmb says;
There are several things I'd like to say at this point, but will restrict
myself to the fourth level. If I follow, you're saying that the fourth level
is where people hear the music for themselves. This tells me that the 4th
level in your version fuses static intellect with the mystical. Is that
right? You seem to imply this several more times...
Sam said:
The life is important for it is in the life of that particular human being
that we see a portrayal
of what the fourth level looks like. It is Quality incarnated in human form
- which is the most
profound way in which we can relate to Quality.
dmb says:
Here you seem to equate the fourth level with capital "Q" Quality. Again
static intellect and the mystical are fused into one. And below you do the
same.
Sam said:
...in so far as we can identify with and be animated by the Quality which
animated Jesus, we too can function at the fourth level of Quality.
dmb says:
I think Jesus was animated by DQ and functioning at the fourth level is
better achieved by study and education, but that would be a standard reading
of the MOQ. And that's not really our concern at the moment. I hope you see
what I'm getting at. Its not that you've failed to draw the line between
social and intellectual patterns. Its not that your fourth level includes
too much or that the MOQ's excludes too much. Its that fusing static
intellect with DQ in this way basically undoes the most primary division of
the MOQ; the static/Dynamic split. Don't get me wrong. The standard version
of Pirsig's intellect is open to DQ and fully capable of genuine creativity,
but "hearing the music requires" the temporary suspension of "thought" in
the usual sense of the word. Coming up with a new hypothesis is just as
remarkable in some ways, but it is simply not the same as a religious
experience found in a vision quest or on the road to Damascus.
Funny thing is, I consider myself a MOQer and a Christian and see no
contradiction at all. I don't have to modify the MOQ or Christianity in
order to achieve this integration. I do have to qualify that, however, and
say that the mystical forms of Christianity are about the only kinds that
work. As far as I know, anyway.
Sam added:
(Of course, I would also claim that this mythology was a true story, that it
described the course of
life of a particular human being, but I don't think it appropriate to debate
that element in a MoQ
forum.)
dmb says:
Really? I didn't quite figure you for a literalist. I'm not sure I can
accept that about you. I mean, in order to believe the story is true, in MOQ
terms, doesn't a person have to be willing to accept things that defy facts,
logic and otherwise assert social level myths over intellect?
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 : Sun Apr 11 2004 - 02:23:15 BST