On Mar 8, 2010, at 12:04 PM, John Carl wrote: > Yes! And never apologize to me for interrupting because I do it all the > time and you might make me feel bad for doing so. > > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:06 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Sorry for interrupting, but equating theism and religion is a mistake, >> and you did say mistakes would be challenged. - m >> >> > > Theism is religion, but not all religion is theistic? Is that your > position/understanding? > > Because mine is different. Pantheism contains "theism", but most churches > would brand you a heretic for adopting that view. > > In my lexicon, any theism represents reified ultimate value, and IN THAT > REGARD, the Moq is not merely atheistic, it's antitheistic. In the same > regard where the MoQ is not a-SOMish, it's anti-SOMish. > > But even as the MoQ is fully able to adopt subjects and objects as > intellectual playthings, so is it able to embrace the utilization of > religious conceptualization and play - as long as such theistic conceptions > are "tamed" by the Quality perspective - subordinate to what is good. > > Go back, you and others who are confused by this quote, and read more > carefully the statement Pirsig made in the Coppleston Ann. and read it with > an eye toward interpreting what he meant by the modifier "in this regard" > when he stated that the MoQ was anti-theistic. I think if read carefully, > it will clear some problems some have had in their attachment to anti-theism > and their prejudicial adoption of the concept. > > Off to work! See you at lunch. > > John
John, I going to assume the following is the full text relating to the above mentioned quote with the arrows indicating RMP's comments: ------------- ""This enveloping unity, which is described in Platonic phrases as being 'at once the source of being to all things that are, and of knowing to all beings that know', is the presupposition of all consciousness. And it is what we call God. It does not follow, Caird insists, that all men possess an explicit awareness of God as the ultimate unity of being and knowing, of objectivity and subjectivity. An explicit awareness is in the nature of the case the product of a long process of development. <<<<<Up to this point the MOQ agrees.>>>>> And we can see in the history of religion the main stages of this development. <<<<<At this point the MOQ diverges.>>>>> The first stage, that of 'objective religion', is dominated by awareness of the object, not indeed as the object in the abstract technical sense of the term, but in the form of the external things by which man finds himself surrounded. <<<<<The MOQ would say that “objective religion” is preceded by awareness of values, as in infants before they learn to distinguish shapes, and in lower biological species such as earthworms which probably do not distinguish objects but do distinguish what is better and worse.>>>>> At this stage man cannot form an idea of anything 'which he cannot body forth as an existence in space and time'. We can assume that he has some dim awareness of a unity comprehending both himself and other things; but he cannot [208] form an idea of the divine except by objectifying it in the gods. The second stage in the development of religion is that of 'subjective religion'. Here man returns from absorption in Nature to consciousness of himself. And God is conceived as a spiritual being standing apart from both Nature and man and as revealing Himself above all in the inner voice of conscience. In the third stage, that of 'absolute religion', the selfconscious subject and its object, Nature, are seen as distinct yet essentially related, and at the same time as grounded in an ultimate unity. And God is conceived 'as the Being who is at once the source, the sustaining power, and the end of our spiritual lives'. This does not mean, however, that the idea of God is completely indeterminate, so that we are forced to embrace the agnosticism of Herbert Spencer For God manifests Himself in both subject and object, and the more we understand the spiritual life of humanity on the one hand and the world of Nature on the other, so much the more do we learn about God who is 'the ultimate unity of our life and of the life of the world' <<<<<The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term “God” is completely dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is anti-theistic. >>>>>"" ------------- I don't get what you are suggesting. It seems clear to me that the fourth stage represents the MoQ point-of-view. Quality as the Ultimate Truth is based on experience with no need of faith. You may understand it differently, and that's fine, but you will need to convince me that the the MoQ includes god as a necessary, high quality concept. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
