From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 22:29:16 BST
Wim and all:
Wim Nusselder said:
I have no real problems with Pirsig's anti-theism even if I prefer
agnosticism for myself. I (and most Quakers) do have problems with 'virgin
birth', 'resurrection' etc. when taken literally and as dogmas. I don't
smell a rat yet when god/God is referred to as 'he/she', as I can still
understand personification/anthropomorphisation of god/God as a useful
metaphor for DQ, even if I personally prefer to refer to god/God as 'it'.
dmb says:
I don't know what to do with this. You have no problem with Pirsig's
anti-theism, yet you find theistic conceptions of God as a useful metaphor.
These two positions are contradictory. I also don't understand how one can
be agnostic and a Quaker at the same time. This is all far too slippery for
me to get a handle on what it is you're actually asserting or denying.
Wim said:
I agree that 'defining God as "that which connects everyone and everything"
fails to portray DQ'. It is (like every static pattern of value, even 4th
level ones) only an imperfect way to 'point at the moon'. I'm fine with God
understood as "mystic unity" too, but it is just less practical to me. "That
which connects everyone and everything" helps me better to contribute to
making that "mystic unity" visible in this world.
dmb says:
Mystic unity is less practical? How so? Isn't practicality a social level
static value? How does a person make the mystic unity "visible in the
world"? Again, I just don't see what you're saying.
I originally asked you about the anti-theism quotes because it seemed to me
that you've been very interested in showing that Quakerism is, in MOQ terms,
a high quality religion. And I had hoped that you would try to square
Pirsig's additional comments with this project. It strikes me as an
impossible task, but maybe that's because Quakerism is different than I
imagaine. I imagined that it is a theistic religion that requires faith. If
that is not true, please explain what it actually is and if it is true would
you now be willing to admit that the MOQ does NOT support your religious
views? You knew that was my aim, no? I even suspect that the changes you'd
make to the MOQ, specifically the line between social and intellectual
levels, is an attempt to patch over the profound differences between theisim
and the MOQ. This is the kind of thing that I find infuriating. And I should
add that this is not a personal thing. It pisses me off no matter who does
it.
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 22:31:06 BST