> Andre wrote to Ham: > I always appreciate your analytic skills and your posts but > sometimes I sense that you still misunderstand some fundamental tenets of > the MoQ. The MoQ 'a belief system' ??? Well, lets not quibble about how you > use the word 'belief'. The MoQ is a framework for analysing and explaining > reality (as we experience it). It seeks to make sense of, apparently > disparate, events (in the broadest sense of the word) and place these within > a framework in such a way as to make 'the whole' understandable. > For me the MoQ has provided the highest quality explanations to date. > > Yes, it posits that Value/Quality is reality. Funny thing is that we are > static patterns of value, inextricably linked to this Reality. See us as > static 'extractions'/'representations' of this Quality. > How you reach the conclusion that Pirsig 'posits this value in a realm of > its own, independent of man' is I feel, a misconception. > Positing that it is NOT independent of man explains man's (basic?) desire to > 'transcend' his/her static patterns towards greater expressions of freedom > (DQ) (freedom from [statically restrictive] biological/ social/ cultural/ > intellectual patterns of value). > > For what it is worth.
MP: Andre, its worth a lot to me, FWIW. You note we shouldn't quibble about how we use the word "belief" but I think that very quibble is turning out to be the source of much of the difference of opinion on theism and MoQ, and as such is not just a quibble but a rift. To accept an MoQ understanding of reality, there is no other choice *but* to "believe" in this concept of Quality; you can't prove its existence, you can only esoterically come to accept it as real outside any essential understanding. This is a form of "belief," no? Adding to this, many theistic belief sets *do* posit God in much the same way you posit Quality as not independent of man's desire to transcend. The parallel is unquestionably vivid in my eyes, having been raised in just such a theistic understanding. I don't think we are that far apart if theism can be understood indpendantly of the religious baggage normally attached to it. Hence my persistence. Theism IMO is a useful bridge from mysticism to something more MoQ 'evolved.' 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/
