Michael to Andre: 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.
Andre, Yes Michael, and I think it is unfortunate and unnecessary, but part of the problem, as I sense it, lies in the construction of our representation (of direct experience and living 'in general') and our attempt to communicate this i.e via language. I suggested to you before that when you say "I believe in...." there is a gap between you and that which you believe in. I do not want to make it too complicated but , for me, the difference lies in the word IN:I experience or do I believe IN (my experience). These are two very different questions and the answers will be different as well. Again, the historical connotations with theism posit the latter notion of 'experience' of something which is immediately associated/subsumed with/by some theistic being/thing identified as something outside of yourself. And, on top of this you get immediate acknowledgement (positive reinforcement), if it fits in with accepted notions of attributes of this deity/theistic belief or damnation (negative reinforcement) if it does not fit the accepted ideas of etc.... This is my rift with you and theism (this-ism, that-ism any 'ffen -ism)), and as I mentioned before, if your gd is the exact equivalent of Quality...why not call it Quality. But your gd IS NOT the same. There's the rift. Do you call direct experience gd? NO, I think you wait untill you push it through your theistically dominated socially inspired morality system, check whether it may be socially/theistically acceptable or not and then, depending on this internal investigation, bring it out in the open or masturbate on it in the dark (which you shouldn't do because that is naughty and makes your heart even blacker than it already is and is one big assurity that you will go to hell) and this is where that particular experience will die. I did get carried away a little Michael but do you know what I am getting at? Pirsig equates religious experience with mystical experience.Pure ,undivided and simple. He has also suggested a framework, a matrix , through which to make sense of this experience. To give it a place and within the MoQ it gets a place. Not so within a theistic framework because some parts of experience get a definite, moralistic no-no. To grow up as a child, full of dynamic quality (i.e. responses to reality [internally/externally) theism posits more no-no's than explanations of what things belong where (as the MoQ does). The MoQ in this sense is full of growth rather than restrictions. This is also part of the rift. Call a spade a spade Michael. Do I believe in Quality? Do I believe in air, in trees, in breathing? Do I believe in seeing is believing or believing is seeing? MP: 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.' Andre: I agree with you Michael, but are you trying to rid religion of its garbage (bagage) on your own? Sorry mate, you cannot do it. Its the bagage/garbage that urged Pirsig to argue that the MoQ finds theism extreme low quality because it simply does not acknowledge DQ within an evolutionary context. How can theism be a useful bridge from mysticism to the MoQ? Do you want to jump from nothing/one/all to god to MoQ or the other way around? I do not understand what you are trying to cling to. Michael: 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? Andre: No! I do not have to go through some esoteric contortions to accept Quality as real. I see it and feel it and hear it within me and without me. The continuing interplay between DQ and SQ is everywhere. And any 'essential' understanding that ignores Quality as real (and here we go again because this is what set Pirsig on the road in the first place) misses the point, creates platypi and ends up being SOM land. Sorry Michael but I'm running out of gumption. Let me leave these responses with you and I'll see what comes back. Andre 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/
