John McConnell said to Ant McWatt, March 4th 2014 (off-line):
"There’s no point igniting a God-bomb in that bunch of theophobes on MD. Here
at least you and I understand each other. You know I’m not out to evangelize
you, and you are at least tolerant of my faith."
dmb says:
Bunch of theophobes on MD? Ouch. I guess John would be talking about people
like me. The label seems in accurate (theophobe) because it's not a personal
aversion or fear but I do think the MOQ is not theism and even anti-theistic in
some respects. In some sense, the MOQ is a religion but without the
supernaturalism and without anything being taken on faith. It's an expression
of the perennial philosophy, a form of philosophical mysticism and is
compatible with a non-theistic religions like Buddhism. But theism? The
churches are real life-savers for some people. Not only feeding people or
saving people from the ravages of vice but also providing a certain moral
standard and an overall civilizing effect. For those dominated by biological
values, joining the church or adopting a traditional faith is certainly an
improvement. But intellectually speaking, faith is garbage. Really low quality
stuff. That's what Pirsig says and I think so too.
Ant McWatt replied to John:
...Finally, to address your substantive point, do keep in mind that any values
statement based on the MOQ will also be guided by Dynamic Quality as well as
intellectual values (which, as I said in my earlier MD post) are considered as
"real" as any other static pattern. The latter point is important to keep in
mind because then these intellectual values are not just seen as purely
subjective (as found in SOM) and therefore relatively unimportant (or something
just for a "PR" exercise) but something to genuinely guide every person at
every level in an organization (whether that be a church, corporation,
residents association, university or charity) at every level AND at every
moment!
Apologies if my last MD post about this subject didn't make that clear! (I
must admit I don't think it did unfortunately).
dmb says:
Exactly. Thank you.
The MOQ says that intellectual values are as real as rocks and trees. And these
values are placed at the top of the moral hierarchy precisely because they are
more dynamic, more open to change, than are the other categories of static
values. This is even more true when SOM (the genetic defect in intellect) is
rejected in favor of the MOQ's root expansion rationality.
In ZAMM Pirsig wrote:
"I think that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role of
Quality in the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical vision at all.
It expands it, strengthens it and brings it far closer to actual scientific
practice."
Quite consistently despite the introduction of DQ, sq, and the four levels in
Lila, Pirsig wrote:
"The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection of
biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is also morally
correct because the intellectual patterns of science are of a higher
evolutionary order than the old biological and social patterns. But the
Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality - the value-force that
chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant
experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one - is another matter altogether.
Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is
as immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic Quality as it
is for church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an
integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself."
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
