Dan said to John:
Without reading the book I see that there seems to be an apparent opposition
between religion and science that I thought Robert Pirsig answered well in his
writings. Rather than trying to bring back some vaguely veiled religious
fundamentalism to combat the rise of science, isn't it better to incorporate
science, religion, and art all under the scope of one umbrella? In addition,
I would like to further explore if religion as Royce expounded upon can be
studied without the seemingly inherent belief in theism, faith in a
supernatural being giving rise to the universe as we know it.
Dave Buchanan says:
Good point, Dan. I think art, science and religion are all under one umbrella,
as you put it, because DQ is the source of each. Theism is a problem to the
extent that centers around empirically unknowable metaphysical entities and to
the extent that it consists of social level static forms. Pirsig and James both
take the view that traditional theism is a second-hand religion, one that tends
to obscure the genuine article. The imitation of fixed forms is exactly what
these guys don't want. That was the problem with the dull, dutiful student who
couldn't right an essay until she learned to stop repeating things she'd heard
and instead look at things with her own eyes. I mean, this principle does not
just apply to theism.
"I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the
conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or
Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him
by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It
would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make
search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to
all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. These experiences we
can only find in individuals for whom religion exists not as a dull habit, but
as an acute fever rather." -- William James, Varieties of Religious Experience
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a sign-post
that allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality. The
danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for
what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic Quality they
were originally intended to preserve." -- Robert Pirsig, Lila
John says Randy is a breath of fresh air since with a great mind but the real
appeal, I'm sure, is that John thinks he's found support for turning the MOQ
into some kind of theism. He keeps insisting that the closed-mindedness of
theophobes (not a real word) is the problem. But the problem is simply that
John doesn't understand what Pirsig or James are doing, which is really just
putting empirical reality over faith-based traditions, putting DQ over sq,
putting intellect over social values, etc.. I mean, the attempt to convert the
MOQ into theism violates the textual evidence in all kinds of ways and it's
also just incoherent and full of fallacies. This kind of damage is just what
happens when one tries to pound square pegs into round holes.
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
