>
> 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.
>
> Ron adds his two cents:
For clarity's sake, I take you to mean
Faith of the blind variety. Most dialectical opposition will attempt
To argue the more general broad
Use of the term and bring scientific
Method to scrutiny and that is where
The dialog disintegrates.
Blind faith, is the problem of our society and I suspect the majority
Of the breakdown in communication
Begins here.
I have a hard time understanding
Why it seems to be missed that
Rationality and reason can pair
Well with theism. "The age of reason"
By Thomas Paine is a fine example
Of the kind of influence the Quakers
Had on intellectual morals and values
Of American society, I guess what I'm
Trying to say is that theism when
It values reason and loves wisdom
As a divine extension seems to
Be a better way of living than forsaking one for the other but
Try to make that arguement and
Wellll.....you know you hit pay dirt
When you catch heat from both sides
>
> 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
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
