From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Jun 06 2004 - 07:51:17 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 2 Jun 2004 17:29:57 -0400:
'Pirsig had to say about dealing with threats to civilization:
"The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always
been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." (Lila, 24)
...
your pacifist views ... are central in the Quaker belief system. Were
everyone like you, there would indeed be peace in the world.'
Yes, I hoped to swing back our e-conversation back to exactly these two
points.
I was still intending to ask you something.
(In fact ever since you wrote 27 Apr 2004 08:57:45 -0400: 'I was raised in
Quaker country, Pennsylvania. I've attended many Quaker meetings.')
How is it possible that you are so acquainted with Quakers and didn't seem
to know the difference between Quakers and Shakers?
(As shown when you wrote 15 Mar 2004 16:20:42 -0500:
'What I had in mind were the artifacts of Quaker-Shaker life here in the
U.S. such as chairs, chests, baskets, barns, buildings etc. which exhibit a
distinctive aesthetic style marked by harmony, elegance and simplicity.')
In my understanding pacifist views are not central to the Quaker belief
system. Central to the Quaker belief system is trust in the availability to
everyone of direct divine guidance. Pacifist practice is only one of the
possible outcomes ('testimonies' in Quaker jargon) of that trust.
(Views/beliefs are considered less relevant than practice among Quakers as
'evidence' of faith.)
I represent a branch of Quakerism in which pacifist practice IS one of the
outcomes of that trust which is considered very important. (Even so much,
that some other representatives of that branch tend to always mention our
'peace testimony' first when enumerating the fruits of our faith.)
This branch is dominant among European Quakers, but a (big) minority among
American Quakers and among Quakers worldwide. What brand of Quakers did you
worship with in your youth?
Communication and co-operation (through Friends World Council for
Consultation) between different brands of Quakerism are much better nowadays
than they were in your youth. Even in your youth animosity between different
brands of Quakers was relatively little compared to the 19th century when
they went their separate ways (in the USA, where else).
Yes, if everyone would practise pacifism (not necessarily as outcome of
Quaker faith), the world would be in peace. The relevant question is of
course whether the world would become more peaceful if a growing number of
people (but not everyone) would do so. Is pacifism or trust in the
availability to everyone of direct divine guidance an answer to people who
are perceived to threaten other people's peace?
Being raised in Pennsylvania and having worshipped with Quakers you probably
know the stories about its early history, when Quakers refused to treat
Indians as threatening their peace. Even when Quakers were not a majority in
Pennsylvania any more, Pennsylvania does seem to have had much more peace
with its Indian neighbours than the other American colonies.
If you worshipped with Quakers, what kept you from continuing to do so? What
lack of Quality in their faith and practice disappointed you (and compared
to what alternative)? Was/became 'art etc.' already your religion back then?
I'll come back to you on the Pirsig quote in the 'MOQ and The Moral
Evolution of Society' thread.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Jun 06 2004 - 07:52:07 BST