[Michael]
That I myself cling to my religious belief does not (that I can tell) preclude
me from being capable at intellectual introspection about it, namely in an MoQ
context.
[Arlo]
Fair enough. But here is how I see what you are saying. "I personally believe
in leprechauns. And believing in leprechauns has made some people do some good
things. And you're never going to convince everyone to stop believing in
leprechauns. I can have the discussion with you about the metaphor in the
leprechaun stories, but personally I believe they literally exist and hand out
pots of gold to people who find them."
[Michael]
My point about theism with dmb is two fold; (1) theism has a clear definition
that is stripped of cultural context and should be used that way...
[Arlo]
This is the root of your misconception. And you can't seriously believe it if
you proclaim to be an "Orthodox Christian". What you may be confusing theism
with something akin to Deism, or maybe "esoteric Mysticism", but these are NOT
theistic. Theism cannot be "stripped of its cultural context" because that
cultural context is precisely what defines theism. And it is what is behind
Pirsig's comment that the MOQ is "not only atheistic, but anti-theistic".
Quality is not God, and to confuse the two is problematic, nor is there a God
in the MOQ, nor is one needed. "Theism" is a particular cultural-historical
response to human experience, and should be understood as such.
[Michael]
because (2) as a concept it can still offer Quality if the cultural context in
which it touches down is prepped for it.
[Arlo]
And leprechaunism may drive people to help old ladies cross busy streets. Sure,
ANY mythological tradition can drive what we observe as Quality behavior, but
ultimately they all fail when they (1) are exclusive and (2) are uncritically
accepted in toto. Observing all the Mythos from a Pirsigian or Campbellian
analogy perspective allows our vision to be directed as was esoterically
intended by the weavers of lore, to the Void, rather than towards whether there
are merits to Leprechaunism or not.
[Michael]
My personal faith, in my presonal "myth" I call Orthodox Christianity, sees God
is indescribeable.
[Arlo]
And yet "Orthodox Christianity" is nothing more than a framework to describe
"God". From within its walls "God" takes on very particular, and intended,
structure. "Creation" becomes the intentional and willful act of a Sentient
God, world events become envisioned as the deliberate interventions of a
Paternalistic Deity; sometimes jealous, sometimes angry, sometimes uninterested.
If you truly hold "God" as indescribable as you suggest, the next time you are
in Church, read out loud "She" instead of "He" when referring to God. See how
many object, and ask yourself why? Because even this small referential connotes
significant meaning, and that is Trap Primus of theism.
[Michael]
... but that God (and I'm happy to substitute Pirsig's "Quality") will work us
in a good ("quality") direction if we remain open and accepting of it when we
see it in our daily lives.
[Arlo]
Pirsig's Quality is not a God. "God" is a response to Quality. As are stories
about leprechauns.
[Michael]
But the level of understanding that the mythos is only our pathetic attempt to
quantify the unquantifiable (Quality) is IMO high enough that it shows there is
a way to allow theism to remain as long as culture needs it AND move toward
quality.
[Arlo]
It is not a "pathetic attempt", it is Art. Recognizing that the Void is always
beyond containment by any metaphor does not render poorly the art that points
us towards it.
Now there is another can of worms here. Does modern culture "need" theism? Are
we at a point in evolution where we are still too immature to handle a
Campbellian or Pirsigian bird's eye perspective? Does "man" continue to need a
"God" to control him or give his life meaning?
[Michael]
But I assure you, that in 5000 years, Quality will be equally regarded as a
cultural myth. To presume we have found the ultimate answer is arrogance beyond
measure.
[Arlo]
Of course it is. This is why Pirsig himself says the MOQ is "just another
finger pointing at the moon." Something better will come along, a better
metaphor will be crafted, few here would dispute such a certainty. And is
Pirsig's Quality also enmeshed in a static social-historical contextual
framework? Sure. "We are suspended in language", as Pirsig quoted Cluckholm.
In ZMM he says, "The trouble is that essays always have to sound like God
talking for eternity, and that isn’t the way it ever is. People should see
that it’s never anything other than just one person talking from one place in
time and space and circumstance. It’s never been anything else..." (ZMM)
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/
