From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 17:37:04 BST
In a message dated 4/18/04 3:09:29 PM GMT Daylight Time,
us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk writes:
> Mark 17-4-04: The Metaphysics of Quality is an Intellectual pattern of
> Value.
> Christianity is not an intellectual pattern of value - Christianity is a
> combination of Social and Intellectual patterns. In so far as Christianity is, i
> n part, composed of Intellectual patterns, the MoQ is superior.
> Aristotelian Metaphysics is an intellectual pattern of Values. The
> Integration of Intellectual patterns into a religion such as Christianity and Islam is
> that way in which Christianity and Islam evolve; they must evolve by
> accommodating new Intellectual patterns or die.
> But it is the Intellectual patterns which are leading this evolutionary
> process.
> Your attempt to Integrate the MoQ is the latest in a long line of religious
> attempts to stay alive; to stay alive by evolving into something new.
> It seems to me that you are failing - slowly, and by degrees, religions are
> changing to the point where they become so different from what they were as
> to become irrelevant, atrophied and static.
>
>
> DM: Well, this response to Sam's Christianity is a matter of opinion.
> Theoretically it is surely possible, although practically difficult, to change &
> evolve Christianity in the light of Pirsig, it has always responded to whatever
> large movements it
> has to exist alongside such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, & science.
> Sometimes positively, sometimes in conflict,
> in a more complex way than most non-historians would realise. It is
> perfectly possible for Christianity to survive in a much more
> radical and intellectual construction than it does now, & has done so more
> in the past, once about a time everything intellectual was within the Church.
> I am not entirely convinced that we have turned secular forever. But,
> personally, if there is a way forward
> for religion I think it involves a conception of god that probably goes
> beyond what Christianity can assimilate. But the heretics may yet well begin
> within the Church. Your last sentence is pretty odd, it only says that change may
> result in something losing its previous known word of definition, sure, but
> whether it becomes static or new and frsh is a matter of what you call
> coherence.
> I think this is what you would have to accept if you withdraw from assuming
> you can predict the course of history.
>
> regards
> David
>
Hi David M,
The MoQ suggests that all static patterns of value are evolving towards DQ.
Viewed as static patterns of value, Christianity is also evolving towards DQ?
As you recognise yourself, "But, personally, if there is a way forward for
religion I think it involves a conception of god that probably goes beyond what
Christianity can assimilate."
DQ cannot be assimilated.
If Christianity cannot assimilate DQ in it's patterned structure, and if it
fails to respond to DQ towards more coherent states, then it will simply become
more and more static.
I think Christianity does try its very best to become more coherent, and this
evolution is lead by those intellectuals who wish to overcome insurmountable
problems regarding the conflict between Social and Intellectual patterns. This
feature was excellently put by dmb in his most recent post:
dmb:
"The myth says he came back from the dead. Science, experience and common
sense says that's impossible. In MOQ terms, if one asserts myth in such a way
that it trumps or defies intellect, one has asserted a lower level of morality
over a higher one and has thereby engaged in a minor form of evil, an act of
decadent corruption."
I have no idea where this will lead? I have no idea how religion is going to
continue to battle intellectual progress? I guess it will have to discover
better ways of holding onto it's fundamental tenets but in a modified form? I
think this has already got to the point where it is very difficult to ascertain
whether Christian myths are metaphor and simile, or supposed to have actually
happened?
dmb cont:
"As I said before, "I never figured you for a literalist". Please say it
ain't so."
Dmb's feeling of evasive tactics on the part of Sam, and every other
Christian he has ever had any dealings with resonates with my experience also. And
over this past week i have felt it all over again.
There are Theological University degrees, masters, PhD's going into tortuous
detail regarding these issues. And if that isn't a concrete example of
becoming more and more static, i am not sure what is?
All the best,
Mark
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 Apr 19 2004 - 01:52:22 BST