[DM] I find myself very concerned by the dualism and scientism of the Enlightenment and interested in what both high romanticism, idealism and eventually post-modernism have to say about the limitations and ideology of the Enlightenment.
[Arlo] Fully agree. Much to the bane of some, I consider Pirsig's MOQ to be a post-modern philosophy. Like anything else, I look back at the Enlightenment and see both what it gave us, and what it took away. I think ZMM is clear treatise of the problems of the dualistic reason brought by the Enlightenment. [DM] In this context, I am concerned about the ideology of secularism and its entanglement with SOM. This SOM based secularism undermines the value of many aspects of experience as merely subjective. And it seems to think that knowledge can be attained via an impossibly value-neutral objectivity. [Arlo] Coincidentally, there was a short article in Newsweek this week about the word "secularism" and how the right-wing has demonified the term. Let's be clear, I use "secular" in the meaning "not derived from nor associated with religion". When Pirsig himself calls the MOQ "anti-theistic", he is (IMO) clearly stating the MOQ is secular. Does the MOQ leave room for "mystic experience"? You bet. We should speak more about the Buddhism present in Pirsig's philosophy. [DM] Now if we reject this SOM and see our values and knowledge as inseparable and all our activity as pragmatic forms of life, where does this leave religion post-Enlightenment? [Arlo] Scrambling to reinvent itself as a "philosophy of freedom". And in a politically troubled world, the pendulum is swinging quite far towards "fundamentalism" (literalism) and away from "mysticism" (metaphoricity). Men seem to want pre-made microwavable beliefs rather than explore the metaphors (such as Campbell) that all men use to point towards the "black hole" in the center of our experiences. (Pardon the sexism) [DM] Whilst accepting that religion has been strongly tied to social control and ideology, is not a part of religion about upholding values? [Arlo] That's what it says. My question is, does "man" need religion to uphold values? Or is there a better way? My vote is on "better way". [DM] I wonder, does not a post-enlightenment idea of values not mean that we, in as far as religion is a matter of values, need to be more open to allowing religious people to hold and explore whatever values they hold? [Arlo] Absolutely. My two condemnations here revolve around the reificiation of social power (the "Church") and the move towards literalism, which leads people away from a better understanding of the human condition. For example, rather than say "Christianity is true, and Buddhism is false", I think its better to explore what both metaphors were striving to point towards. If its all "a finger pointing at the moon", we should drop the nationalistic and tribalistic notions of "right" and instead consider "best". You'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at how little many self-professed "Christians" in this country know about the history of the their own belief. Start talking about Mithraic traditions, for example, and many just stare blankly. Heaven forbid, you start talking about the global solstice ceremonies, the appropriation of pagan fertility rites, and the archetypal meanings suggested in both the Occidental traditions and, say, the Lakota traditions. This is simply to say, if you mistake me for someone who is anti-spiritual, or anti-mysticism, or who is promoting dualistic reason, then either I have not articulated my positions clearly, or you are buying into Platt's idiotic nonsense. [DM] Is this not what diversity and pluralism really requires? Equally, we also need to insist that all people recognise that values differ and that we all have to learn to live with people who have different values and we have to find appropriate compromises where these conflict and accept that values and people change and can choose to move between different communities. [Arlo] Certainly and absolutely. You'll recall that a short while ago, the self-professed "freedom" hypocrits actually applauded a law banning Muslim women from practicing their tradition of wearing the hijab. I stood up for this, the same way I would stand up for a Hindu wearing a Bindi, or a Jew wearing a Yarmulka. When religions are seen as metaphorical maps towards understanding something which can never be spoken, they are the best things we have going. They are (as I've said recently) "textual art". When they become nationalist ideologies, however, where others are denigrated, and agency is regulated by the social power structure born of this ideology, then we slide into the nightmare that Enlightenment reason freed us from. We have farther to go, to be sure, but not backwards. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
