> From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[email protected]> > [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".
MP: Agreed to the first. See note 1 below. As to the second, unless you actually *practice* Orthodox Christianity, you have no place to judge whether or not I can or cannot proclaim something about a God you can't manage to distinguish from a leprechaun. That's *your* misconception; that nothing quality can come from religion, let alone theism. My point is that the only way humanity can ever move past religion, and theism for that matter is through Dynamic quality within religion, within that cultural context. And by not understanding that context to the degree you, or dmb seem to do, how will you ever recognize quality within its ranks? You won't. And as such your approach will fail to ever move culture toward greater Quality. Sun Tzu: Know your enemy. Lao Tzu: It is the meet that the larger should take the lower position. > [Arlo] > 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. MP: No. It is the trap of *theology*, the cultural manifestation of theism into practice. I have no problem calling God "She" and know more than a few OC priests who feel the same way but if others object, it is again IMO not a problem with theism but theology, which by definition is at least one step removed from theism. The Trap Primus of theism IMO is still a trap, but higher up the evolutionary scale because while it is culturally contrived, it still exists closer to the Dynamic quality that brought it forth in the first place. Theology, religion, superstition, etc. are culturally based manifestations, *time-related* applications of theism and as such vary over time with culture (celibate priests in the RC is a perfect case in point having been introduced less than two centuries ago and for very non- theistic reasons) Theism on the other hand does not vary with culture, remains "pure" in that sense and given it was a Quality driven event is IMO the best source for finding a way to guide a culture that relies on it to a hgiher quality "replacement." Anything else is to try to actively convince myth to change to non-myth and is doomed from the outset (again, see note 1 below) > [Arlo] > 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? MP: I believe this is the case, rather emphatically, actually. I believe I have been rummaging in this can (arriving at this conclusion) from the outset and it is what is guiding my reaction to the attacks on theism. To whit: Note 1: ARLO, you specifically deserve credit for opening my eyes on this. After the last round of posts, I scrambled some eggs and thought about theism in the context of what you'd poasted. In thinking more on this, I acknowledge that theism (as a term used per its 'official' definition as I insist) is in fact culturally based. But as such IMO it still remains a culturally relevant understanding of Pirsig's Quality from a lower Pirsigian evolutionary level. Culture is what allowed theism to emerge. That I will grant. And while I don't think it changes what I've said (I actually think it re-inforces it), I hope it may assuage your feeling that I am being intentionally contrary to your positions. I'm new at this MoQ thing, and while that doesn't excuse me from not thinking clearly right off the bat, I hope it explains my tortured path. However, having made this recognition, (theism being culturally based) it must be acknowledged that as such it is thus also shown to be something one cannot extract, remove, abolish or eliminate from culture without doing the same (or something else) to the culture which generates it as a concept in the first place. The act of believing there is a god is a specific cultural level understanding of what Pirsig has identified as Quality. That cultural understanding is described generically as a theism, but given a specific cultural context manifests itself as religions and theology rather than MoQ. But you cannot get rid of theism any more than you can get rid of Quality. It is merely a description of what Pirsig describes as Quality in a specific (and thus culturally different, if not absent) MoQ evolutionary context. To get society to embrace Quality without thesim, you have to either change *that culture* or get rid of it entirely. Back to the baseball players; you can't abolish their superstitions because the simple act of *being superstitious* regardless how it is manifested is inherent to their culture. Force them not to be superstitious by rule, and they will only internalize the superstitions so they are not observed by the rule maker and only strengthen their resolve to maintain them. (witness: USSR v. religion) Try to convince them they should drop them will make them dig in their heels. Regardless of whether you see a "better" option than superstition, they will not budge while you take any approach toward it that seeks to negate it. Someone earlier alluded to this: in our culture "superstition" has negative connotations, so they make fun of themselves publicly, but still persist with the superstition. By seeking to assign negative connotations to theism, how is that not doing the same thing? Only when they accept an alternative to it as a process of MoQ evolution will they drop the superstition. And as part of this process it is imperative to determine if (a) the superstitions themselves are the problem or rather that it is (b) the simple act of *being* superstitious (regardless of the actual superstition held) and (c) to be able to differentiate one from the other when seeking a working solution. If you want the game to be rid of the ball players' supersititions you have three working approaches (the fourth; outright force I think I have shown is not a "working" one); (1) provide alternative superstitions (my previous "only a myth can replace a myth"), (2) offer game playing alternative(s) to baseball void of superstition while waiting for the players to come to the alternative(s) or (3) change the game to be something other than baseball, where superstitions don't exists; expell the culture; sell the franchise and buy a football team. (3) ignores (a), (b) & (c) and is not relevant to us unless we are prepared to replace humanity with something else. (1) is just a Cat-in-the-Hat solution which fails at (c) and ingores (b) and perpetuates the status quo. So (2) is the only viable MoQ option. And (2) is to a great degree (1) but the replacement is not a myth (not at least on the same Quality level as the superstition it replaces) because it satisfies (c) by addressing (b) and avoiding (a). But it cannot be approached as "we are replacing your superstition" or it will backfire by reverting to (a). The player's casting aside the superstition must be a voluntary choice of an alternative non-superstition or it becomes (1). So... you can't get rid of theism while culture hasn't moved to the point where it sheds it of its own accord. Which, I must point out is what I originally said here: MP: (Mon Jan 26 18:05:50 PST 2009): If it becomes vestigal, or irrelevant, it no longer matters if you get rid of it or not, so why bother. If it isn't irrelevant or vestigal, then it does matter and you should not get rid of it. Just let it go where it goes, and work on the alternative higher quality Dynamic or static modes. 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/
