Ron:
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.
>
John:
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?
Ron:
god/DQ= not fully understood....not misunderstood, although your next sentence
could apply to both in this respect..
John:
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.
Ron:
I agree, that to those who understand the meaning, God is synonomous
with the good, in others words our values. Which means, that both god
and good is a matter of personal values making both god and good contextual
in meaning.
John:
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.
Ron:
"Good" or Quality, is an abstract noun
"An abstract noun is a type of noun that refers to something a
person cannot physically interact with. A noun is a person,
place or thing. However, in many cases, the 'thing' might
be an intangible concept – which means it is an abstract
form of noun. In this instance, abstract means to exist
apart from concrete existence. A noun that is abstract is
an aspect, concept, idea, experience, state of being,
trait, quality, feeling, or other entity that cannot be
experienced with the five senses."
-your dictionary
Or it could mean experience or being ie "I am"
John:
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.
Ron prev:
> 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
>
John:
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,
Ron:
A Pragmatist would respect another's value for the pedestrian understanding
of the term "God" for it's a concept which holds meaning. But in the same
breath, would not deem it nessecary for it to have meaning for each individual
universally and I think thats the whole arguement in a nutshell. What did
George
Carlin say? " Religion is like a pair of shoes. Find one that is comfortable
for you,
but don't make me wear your shoes. And for Pete's sake, DON'T nail soles
onto onto the feet of the natives."
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/
