Hi dmb,
On Jan 30, 2010, at 8:03:04 PM, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote: Mark said to Bo: Quite frankly, I do not see how a belief in Quality is any different from a belief in God, it is just a different description of the same. dmb says: If memory serves, Pirsig thinks that only a mystic can equate Quality with God. I think that means that theistic conceptions don't match what he's saying about Quality whereas the mystics share this notion of reality as undivided and indefinable. For example, it would be really goofy to claim that Quality so loved the world that he sent his only son, that Quality is jealous and angry, that the Pope is Quality's vicar or a million other things that people say about the Christian God. In fact, there are two kinds of mystics, theistic and non-theistic, and the MOQ really only fits the latter. Mark responds: dmb, these attributes that are given are all metaphors so that we simple humans can understand what they mean in our terms. I agree that those that take these things literally in order to impose control are misleading. What we describe of Quality is also a metaphor. I am not a Christian scholar, but as I recall, the statement was that we are all "children" of God in the same way we can say we are "children" of Quality. The differentiation of a mystic from the rest is difficult since it can be claimed that we are all mystics. If such a term is meant to denote somebody outside the norm, then I agree. Most of us are mystical about the same thing, which makes it commonly acceptable, but is nothing more than conventional mysticism. Mark also said: There is no need for the constant comparison, it does not mean anything except to someone with a grudge against religion. dmb says: Actually, comparisons can be quite meaningful and helpful in this area. Ever heard of the perennial philosophy? That is the product of comparative analysis of the world's great religions by Aldous Huxley. The idea is basically that each religion, despite all the variety of differences, has an esoteric core that more or less agrees with every other religion. This central quasi-secret teaching is derived from a common type of experience that people in all times and places have reported. Religions grow up around people who have had this mystical experience and are good at communicating it. Sadly, all the doctrines and theologies that develop subsequently tend to obscure and distort these origins and so the meaning gets lost and things need to be refreshed again. So the problem here is we want to make sure we're not equating Quality with the obscurations and distortions, with the static patterns that cling to the core meaning but rather with that core itself. I am also an interpreter of the Perennial Philosophy, as are you. And, I have no problem trying to find commonality in beliefs, which is what Huxley does. This is an effort to explain such views to those of us uninitiated. Jesus was a common mystic (used, I believe as you describe the term). We are finding out more concerning what was being thought about during his time, before the Church took over. So in a sense, we do not understand its core, as a group, but there are many who probably do. What I mean is constant comparisons that state that something is different from something else, when it is not. Chapter 30 in Lila covers this stuff. There Pirsig says, "In all religions bishops tend to gild Dynamic Quality with all sorts of static interpretations because their cultures require it. But these interpretations become like golden vines that cling to a tree, shut out its sunlight and eventually strangle it." It would seem to me that Pirsig is viewing religions from the outside as a critic. He is not taking into account the individual sense of religion. To define a religion by its political aspirations or coercive methods is missing the whole point. Quality is a belief system, it is no different. If MoQ were to progress by defining strict dogma (as is often done in these posts), then perhaps we could compare the MoQ to a coercive religion. Whether sunlight shines in or is shut out is a personal response. Pirsig obviously doesn't like the metaphysics present in some religions, but that is due to his personal interpretation. In every mode of thought, there are people who need to be told what to believe, and people who think for themselves. To relegate those in certain religions to the former is indeed a disservice promoted by Pirsig. "... once this integrations occurs and DQ is identified with religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to what Dynamic Quality is. A lot of this religious mysticism is just low-grade 'yelping about god', of course, but if you search for the sources of it and don't take the yelps too literally a lot of interesting things turn up." If Pirsig could define where religious mysticism begins and ends, that would be most useful. He has concepts which he believes are held by all, but on a topic such as religion, he is far from the truth. IMHO, of course, Mark _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/ 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/ 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/
