Someone who is distractingly named John on MD, but is not our John at LS said:
If I'm misunderstanding the MOQ, please show me. But I don't see how I can be mistaken. It clearly stops at the intellectual level and clearly says, "That's all there is." But that's not "all there is" for me! >From my view, the transcendent experience of faith and worship is more Dynamic than intellectual experience, and its patterns are further advanced, Dynamically, than intellectual ones. Mary: This argument is around a lot. If science or the MoQ doesn't validate religion - my religion anyway - then there's something wrong with science or the MoQ. My experience of the divine is completely real, it is said, and I know I've experienced God, etc., etc. John2 cont'd: you haven't excluded religion??? C'mon!! The only religion you haven't excluded is Buddhism. You have made it patently clear that you and Pirsig are anti-theistic. The MOQ tolerates religion but does not accept it as anything more than a flawed social pattern. You have dismissed faith in God as "garbage, low quality". (Pirsig seems somewhat more tolerant.) Pirsig avers that the four levels of the MOQ embrace all of evolution and of human experience. Well, it deliberately (and I think arbitrarily) excludes the most significant dimension of my human experience! I feel like someone who sees colors, and you see shades of grey and insist that seeing color is "very low quality". I agree that some "very low quality" patterns have been of religion and in the name of religion. What's very low quality is subversion of color vision (faith) to social institutions that screw it up, or to bad intellectual constructs that are used to judge and abuse other people. But seeing color isn't a bad thing just because you don't! Mary: There's the crux of the issue. Not fair! Not fair, you cry! Why don't you treat my religion with the same respect you show for science? Well, as DMB is fond of saying, the MoQ is based on experience. I agree for the most part, and would add that this must be extended to bring clarity. Get this. The MoQ is based on experience but NOT on your interpretation of experience. If you choose to interpret a personal sense of well-being, for instance, as being caused by God, that is your interpretation of experience, and static interpretation has very little to do with the actual experience. Simple. Same goes for science, to be completely fair. We used to think the earth was flat. That was the epitome of science in its day; but then, somebody showed that the experience that looked like the earth was flat, was a wrong interpretation of the experience! The point is, the experience did not change, but the static interpretation did. The biggest mistake a person can make is believing that their interpretation of experience is the only right one. That causes trouble (and things like ISIS/ISIL). I'm sure they believe America is being unfair to them too. When religion, of any type, provides the most satisfactorily logical interpretation of reality, then, and only then, will people unite behind your interpretation of experience. Best, Mary of LS 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
