Ron, I agree completely. I just wanna restate your points in my own words and understanding.
God, in my understanding of how it relates to the MoQ > is a term used for those experiences which are not fully > understood or understood at all. The MoQ uses the term > Dynamic Quality. > Well, I guess I don't agree completely. God=misunderstood experience; does that make this formulation you offer God? Since I can't understand it? Lewis Carrol would be our prophet if God=nonsense, but RMP says: "If it can be shown that Quality is the central term of all three (religion, art and science) and this Quality is not many, but one, then it follows these three disunified areas have a basis for introconversion." ZAMM 231 Note, the title of the book sums up this triadic formulation: - Zen equates to religion, Art equates to (duh) Art and Motorcycle maintenance is a science. The full explication of this triadic introconversion to religiously oriented minds, is postponed in ZAMM till "much later on". A prophetic statement indeed considering how long it took to get Lila to us! But we are left with the tantalizing "The old English roots for the Buddha and the Quality, 'God' and 'Good', appear to be identical." statement dangling in front of our noses like a carrot. Some would argue that his was never achieved. Some on this list seem intent on postponing "much later on" into the infinite future and would argue it never happened and never will, but the last word of Lila is "Good is a noun". Which is another way of saying, to my MoQ understanding, reified Good is the basis of all religion. Which ever definition your religion adopts is short of the full definition, it's "only an analogy" but the source of these differing analogies can be reasonably deduced as the creator of all experience. This seems to me pretty simple, elegant and comprehensive. A theory which pragmatically works and is therefore, to a pragmatist, true. My rant against atheism in the MoQ, is that atheism as its used commonly, is in direct contradiction of the central insights of the MoQ as described by its author in easy-to-understand words. What's up with that? Really, the central tenet of what goes by the name "atheist" in the world, is the heart of SOM - the Values-Free aspect of reality as opposed to the MoQ. Bottom -up evolutionists that posit everything arising through chance and randomness, with ultimately no meaning to anything at all. Krimel's moROn position. > Also, The MoQ's Pragmatic endeavor is the active reflective inquirey > of our beliefs and how they are constructed. To state that this too is a > belief > is not really understanding what is meant by the term, is inquirey belief? > does it make sense to equate the two? they seem to contradict to me. > > > -Ron > Well Ron, if it's a mystery, call it "God (or Good)" and call it a day! I think Royces logic of interpretation is very helpful in clarifying this process, but that's "much later on." Much later on, John 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/
