> > MP: > > Bo, I'm not denying anyone any "thesis", MoQ or otherwise. Go with > > what works for you. > > Bo: > We have been discussing Pirsig's MOQ for years and disagreed > and agreed in countless ways, but one thing I think we agree about > is the MOQ putting traditional or formal religion - what I call > "Semitic" (Judaism, Old Testament Christendom and Islam) on the > social value level. > > If anyone joins the discussion without knowing the basics about > the Dynamic/Static ordering of reality and the static levels, but just > throws in a concept like "theism" without placing it in the Q system > it becomes very difficult. Well I know that you discussed at length > with DMB for instance so all this my admonishing may be > irrelevant. > MP: I don't disagree that formal religion and tradition are on the social level. In fact I have been insisting they are, and insisting that the words used to describe them are more accurately "religion", "tradition" and "cultural manifestations of theism" rather than "theism." I see the word "theism" as having excellent standing to describe something altogether different from "religion", "tradition" in a way that can allow that particular "face of the Void" to have more meaning on an MoQ level above the social value level. This was at the heart of the point I was attempting to explain to DMB. Admittedly, I am pushing the definition of theism to an edge, and then from there seeking to extend past the edge. But even at the edge, the word takes on far greater quality meaning than mere "religion" has manage so far absent an MoQ approach to "theism."
It may be arrogant of me to say so, but this "admonishing" you see going on is IMO an extremely static reaction in "defence" of MoQ, and IMO an entirely unnecessary one. I don't believe what I am suggesting with "theism" is an attack on MoQ. If anything it is an MoQ attack on "religion" and "tradition" in the interest of finding a social level approach to theism that can afford greater opportunity to attain Quality results. IMO "religion" and "tradition" are as static and social level as they are as a result of a failure to approach theism from an MoQ understanding. Social level value patterns will remain social level value patterns, but they can have greater or lesser quality infused in them, no? I suppose, this can be added to the sum total of rambling you could count as my "thesis." > > I'm here because what I understood of MoQ explained a lot to me that > > had not made sense before. Problem is, the more I try to get a hold on > > MoQ, the more it becomes a roadblock to my understanding. > > Could you expand on what of the MOQ "explained a lot" and what > developed into a roadblock. MP: I will dwell on this some, so expect there may be more. But at the basic level, the very recognition of Quality as an underlying element in the MoQ where SOM has nothing of the sort, where it has a void between subject and object was to me like a primer that suddenly linked a number of ideas that all made sense to me but otherwise had no clear link to explain the experiential commonality I was recognizing in their otherwise disparate natures; Morality, theism, Zen, intellect, entropy, quantum physics, etc. All quite disparate, yet all somehow connected. Reading ZAMM & Lila was to me a little like finally understanding the electromagnetic wave equation. It was a sudden realization that in all that complexity there is a simple sense to it all, and what's more, that such "sense" more than likely extends beyond mere electromagnetism to the other forces, but, having not even a fraction of the intellect it would take to grasp it, needing to settle with just "a hunch." I'm at that point with Quality; I have to go with "a hunch" about how it relates them all because I don't believe I can manage to express, to "mechanize" (credit to David Swift) it in to knowledge. The road-block is trying to explain the inexplicable. It is in attempting to put into words, here to you all, (and then in *MoQ* terms,) what I comprehend viscerally with far greater clarity. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
