Hi LS,
Slowly I've read and (hopefully) absorbed your messages. There are
some GREAT writers in this Squad! David's initial offering is
wonderful and Diana's additions add depth and introduce the mystical
nature of the MOQ much more succinctly than anything I could come up
with. Maggie's paper is very good. I like the introduction with
Pirsig quotes to stimulate the curiosity. I look forward to seeing
MORE writing!
John introduced a valid objection:
> The quote from Pirsig that accompanies the topic actually only serves to muddy the
>waters.
> In the quote Phaedrus wishes he had a chatechism with which to hit back at Rigel.
>But turn to
> the end of the novel (Ch 32 - p413 in my version) and this whole approach is upended.
>
> The idol, which is a branch of Phaedrus' own personality, says "You did one moral
>thing on
> this whole trip, which saved you... You told Rigel that Lila had quality." "The only
>reason you
> did that was because he caught you by surprise and you couldn't think of your usual
> intellectual answer, but you turned him around ... If it hadn't been for that one
>moral act you'd
> be headed down the coast tomorrow with a lifetime of Lila ahead of you".
Phaedrus just blurted out the first thing that came to mind in his
talk with Rigel, and he (Phaedrus) was unhappy about it. At the time
he said it he didn't really believe Lila had any Quality at all. It
bothered him and kept reappearing in the book because the MOQ says
Quality inheres in everything, but he couldn't see the Quality in
Lila. What was wrong was not that he didn't have a catechism for the
MOQ to throw at Rigel, but that he hadn't fully absorbed the
implications of the MOQ himself. I think that if he had that
exchange to live over again he would say the very same thing - only
this time he would feel the "rightness" of it. He would know it was
true. His transformation into one who comes to believe Lila has
Quality was a truly high Quality experience for him which lead him
deeper into the MOQ than he'd ever gone before.
>To my
> mind the only sin worse is to try to make a metaphysics into a chatechism, in the
>hope of
> using it to somehow bludgeon people into becoming believers. It is the fate of every
>prophet
> to have his words twisted and used to promote the opposite of what he taught. Let's
>not do
> this with Pirsig.
I just don't believe you think I'm trying to "bludgeon" people into
becoming MOQ believers! The problem with introducing any new idea
like this is that people will initially resonate with some parts of
it but not with others. I know I did that. And some people will
never take it any further. I think this is how ideas get twisted
around into a cafeteria style metaphysics (or religion). But we all
must start somewhere. Pirsig believed his ideas should be let loose
in the world. If not, he would never have written the books, and if
someone expresses curiousity about it I think I owe them some sort of
explanation other than just telling them to read 'Lila - though,
obviously, if they are interested, at some point they will do that.
>
> So, responding to Mary's original question, what prompted the request for your
>sermon? Was
> there someone in the congregation with an issue which Pirsig's metaphysics might
>address?
> Were people just curious enough about how you are fired up about the MOQ to ask you
>to
> share your values? Unless you can connect with the vitality in the request you will
>end up
> with an arid presentation which will at best stimulate some thought amongst those
>who stay
> awake. If there is nothing else, try exploring the quality of the actual experience
>of being the
> preacher in front of the congregation, get in touch with what excites you about the
>MOQ, and
> with "directness and simplicity" speak of what it is that moves you at that moment.
>Not the
> usual recipe for a sermon, I suppose, but better than a chatechism.
John, this is wonderful advice, and exactly what I hope to do. The
Squad this month seems to be in the process of writing a speech - and
a great one at that! But it is a speech I will not deliver. I plan
to speak extemporaneously with only some notes to jog my memory of
important points. The writings, though, are profound and very good,
and have given me lots of ideas on what to say, so I want to organize
them as a hand-out for people to read.
Oddly, I have always enjoyed public speaking - perhaps this is
because everyone has to listen to me ;) and over the years I've
learned that the best way for me to engage an audience is to speak
without a script. I have a "dry run" next Sunday when I'll be
speaking to the Humanist Forum in the church. I'm hoping for real
excitement among this particular group since I believe the MOQ is
tailor-made for Humanists. Who knows, they might even challenge me
with new ideas on the subject.
As to your question of how this came about, I was having lunch with
our minister one day and casually mentioned it. I drew THE PICTURE
(the 4 levels with DQ throughout all) on a napkin and he was hooked.
Of course, you have to understand a little about Unitarians - our
minister, for instance, is a gay agnostic, and the congregation as a
whole absorbs new ideas like a sponge! No date has been set for the
"sermon" to the entire congregation, but after my talk with the
Humanists I will set something up. The ideal outcome for me would be
to establish an MOQ discussion group within the church, but in my
view this will be a High Quality experience no matter what happens!
THANKS TO EVERYONE!
Mary
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
