I'd like to take issue with the "anti-theistic mindset of Pirsig and his
followers", as Ham put it. To say that "Christendom has no place in the MoQ" is
a bit like saying the European Middle Age has no place in the MOQ.
"Christendom" is a social, political and historical fact. But it is true that
"faith" (belief without empirical reasons) is considered to be of low-quality.
In that sense, the MOQ is anti-theistic. The principles of Radical Empiricism
will not allow assertions about anything that is beyond experience, that can't
be known in experience, and so rejects any kind of "metaphysical" or
supernatural entities as such. But Ham rightly points out that "this is not to
say that spirituality is not a central element of Pirsig's thesis", although I
don't think it is anything "disguised" about it. Nor do I think the MOQ is "a
philosophy that is flawed by the separation of the individual from the
universe." Quite the opposite. Pirsig's central enemy (SOM) is heavily
implicated in that separation and the MOQ's philosophical mysticism is actually
the antidote to that separation. (Thou Art That) Further, experience is NOT
"man's only acknowledged link to universal existence". (Assume "universal
existence" is a fancy way to say "universe".) In the MOQ experience is not a
LINK TO reality. Experience IS reality. And finally, its not true that "the MoQ
dismisses the essential nature of the individual". It does, however, dismiss
the Cartesian self because of the way it sets up the separation between
objective reality and the subjective mind, which is apparently a lot like Ham's
"free, value-sensible agent". In a nutshell, I think Ham doesn't understand the
problem (SOM) or the solution (MOQ). It is no accident that SOM and theism go
hand in hand. Descartes' Cogito is basically a secular soul, an entity distinct
from the physical realm and without extension. And so it's not surprising that
Ham's essentialism is essentially a mixture of SOM theism with a little dash of
rationalism. It's Cartesian enough to be considered part of the problem that
the MOQ is meant to solve. That's why he is at odds with all of the most
crucial elements, including the alternative conception of the self (ego as
little self and Big Self) and the related mystical dimension. A brief
discussion of the connection between Jesus and Buddha would be one way to
explain this kind of mysticism. I guess we'll never know if Jesus visited
India, learned about Buddhism from someone who had and what. I think the
similarities between them can be explained psychologically and there doesn't
need to be any geographic or scholarly connections. As every Joseph Campbell
fan knows, Jesus and Buddha are like a thousand other heroes. And they're just
like us too. They stand as examples of what we must all do. Take the journey
and see for yourself in your own experience. Don't take it on faith and don't
confuse intellectual descriptions with the experience itself. Mystical reality
is not something you believe in so much as something you go through, suffer and
enjoy. This is the essence of the reason for rejecting faith based beliefs,
theism, theocracy and tradition in favor of an empirically-based world view.
Obviously, this is not the empiricism of the positivists insofar as it fully
accepts these so-called "subjective" experiences as real, just as real as rocks
and rain. These are psychological facts, if you will. And the idea here is that
all the world's religions are based on these psychological facts, they all grow
out of these kinds of experiences. In that sense, the MOQ doesn't reject
religion so much as it ranks the original experience over the social and
political institutions and the mere professions of faith. Christendom's place
in the MOQ is within the social level of static quality while mystical
experience is Dynamic and part of the process of human growth and
transformation. If a religion is healthy and functioning its system of rituals
and symbols precipitate this experience in those who take part, but in our
postmodern, technological world they no longer function. Our world is too loud
and so it drowns out the whispering voices of myth and we hardly know how to
read the symbols. Thus the rise of fundamentalism, literalism and fanaticism.
These forms of theism are so far removed from actual religious experience that
it's hard to see any connection at all. They're just ego-driven political
movements. dmb
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009
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/
