Ian said:
All I would question is why a negative reaction to "veiled religious
fundamentlism" - dogmatic fundamentalism bad sure, but what about "faith in
quality" as the basis of a living metaphysics.
Andre replied:
Because 'faith in quality' suggests a belief, a trust in whatever one means by
quality. In this sense the MoQ is anti-theistic BECAUSE 'Everybody knows what
quality is. Some people know that they know it, and other people, particularly
Freshman rhetoric students, don't know they know that they know it'. (Anthony's
PhD, p 45). Every 6-year old knows what quality is Ian. You don't need any
faith whatsoever ....
dmb says:
Good point, Andre (and Ant). DQ is experience itself, which is also known as
"the primary empirical reality," while faith is approximately the opposite of
that.
"The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
"Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't
have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of definition.
Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
abstractions. Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the
sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of
these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and knowable, or
there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of
dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition,
this means that a "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially a contradiction in
terms, a logical absurdity." (Pirsig, Lila)
DQ must remain undefined but the METAPHYSICS of Quality is a set of ideas
arranged around that mystic focal point. DQ is neither static nor intellectual
but that's exactly what metaphysics MUST be. Those who confuse these two
things, like Ian apparently has, might come to the absurd conclusion that
metaphysics is outside of thought and language, that words can't be defined and
ideas have no particular meaning. The MOQ is presented in two published books,
both of which are filled to brim with thoughts and ideas and words with
particular meanings and definitions. The mystic reality it talks about is
knowable through direct experience while the meanings and definitions are known
intellectually and conceptually. Either way, faith plays no role here. In fact,
in this context theism and faith are forms of evil.
That's one thing that John really doesn't get. He wants us to be "open-minded"
to accept a certain kind of evil and degeneracy and the grotesque distorting
effect that would have on the MOQ. This is what Pirsig says about the God of
the idealists like Bradley and Royce in particular.
"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."
"The selling out of intellectual truth to the social icons of organized
religion is seen by the MOQ as an evil act."
"Faith is not required for an understanding of Quality. Here Quality succeeds
where Bradley's Absolute and Hegel's Being and the Buddhist Nothingness and the
Hindu Oneness and the theists' God and Allah and you-name-it, all of them fail.
For Quality, no faith is required because there is no way you can disbelieve
that there is such a thing as quality. You cannot conceive of or live in a
world in which nothing is better than anything else."
"When you hear the words 'spirit' and 'faith' always look for a traditional
religionist trying to sneak his goods in the back door. ...like the
positivists, the MOQ drops spirit and faith, cold."
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
