From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 02:13:53 BST
All Daves and all MOQers:
Dave S said:
While tolerance is an indispensible attitude to productive discussions, it
is
not the ceiling of discourse, and ultimately it is a limited perspective.
Why? Because of the same problem that plagues many a postmodern pluralist:
nonjudgmentalism. it's when the subject does not merely reserve judgment in
order to acquire a critical, multi-lateral perspective, but becomes
incapable
of judgment, and lumps all views under a the relativistic banner of
pluralism,
sanctioned by watchwords like sensitive, pluralistic, inclusive, etc. This
is, to an extent, all very good, but in the impassioned rush to achieve
inclusivity, one risks conflating and ignoring the irreconcialable
differences
between different views; in other words, not all differences are formal.
dmb says:
I was hoping you might help out with this point. Well said. Related to this
nonjudgementalism problem, this flattening, there is the problem of
shattering and scattering where there should be gathering and integrating. I
mean, the REASON we suspend judgement long enough "to aquire a critical,
multi-lateral perspective" is so that we may percieve the limited validity
of each limited perspective and then include them in a larger synthesis of
some sort. The postmodern pluralists seem to include each perspective, but
leaves them scattered, each perspective treated as if it were valid all by
itself, just as good as the next partial view. In other words, pluralism is
supposed to be about synthesis and an increased depth of perception, but has
only been used to fragment, balkanize and flatten.
Dave S continued:
..however, much of the postmodern world believes all ideologies,
viewpoints, perspectives are different amalgamations of forms, signs,
surfaces, texts, etc., that is, it does not believe in qualitatively
different content (which is another way of saying that it does not believe
in spirit, meaning, Quality, etc.)
dmb says:
Zackly. Since there is nothing but intersubjective contexts, it reduces the
facts of science to mere opinion and reduces the meaning of religion to
useful poetry. When pomo gets ugly, it colonizes the it and I domains by
insisting that our intersubjective agreements are anchored in nothing at all
and need not be. As Wilber says, "surface, surface, surface".
Dave S concluded:
This is what happenned with Sam. Remember, Pirsig certainly feels that
some views are of a higher caliber of quality than others. Christianity
(well, what C.S. Lewis called "mere christianity", which basically means the
sine qua non of the faith, meaning that the incarnation was a literal,
actual,
historical event, the only way to God) confuses DQ with SQ, and that means,
according to Pirsig's metaphysics, that it is a low or limited quality view,
period. No buts. The truth, David M, is that Sam removed himself from the
discussion, we did not drive him out. The insensitivity, you see, is due to
him, not to others who disagreed with him and tried to convince him
otherwise.
"heavy baggage", after all, tends to weigh one down, and in general, it is
a
nuisance to those who sincerely wish to travel.
dmb says:
Yes, that's what I was saying to Sam. I think the kind of "mere
christianity" that confuses DQ with SQ was evident is Sam's explantions. For
example, he'd said, "So, instead of saying 'Jesus died to save you from your
sins' it would be a faithful reinterpretation to say 'Jesus shows you how to
sort your life out'". He talked about religion as a guide for social level
concerns like marriage, career, procreation, the development of one's
character, virtue, emotional maturity. I called it a Victorian
self-improvement program from hell because the Victorians also confused
social and spiritual concerns, confused static quality with DQ.
"A 'state of grace' as defined by the Calvinists was a state of religious
'enlightenment'. But by the time the Victorians were through with it,
'grace' had changed from 'godliness' to mean something close to 'social
polish'. ..for the Victorian, higher spiritually meant higher socially.
There was no distinction between the two. 'God is a gentleman through and
through and in all probability, Episcopal too.' To be a gentleman was as
close as you would ever get, while on earth, to God" CH 21
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a signpost
which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality." CH
30
dmb continues:
The problem is not with social values per se, its the confusion that is a
problem. When socially-dominated people go to church to get moral
instruction or practical advice instead of going so they might be allowed
"to see Dynamic Quality" for themselves, then the church has failed. Then it
no longer has a spiritual function, only a social one.
Thanks.
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 May 02 2004 - 02:17:36 BST