From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 00:36:09 GMT
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your reply.
First, let me offer the thought that I am not trying to push Cristianity,
just ask a simple quesiton.
My question is, Is it better to tell a person they are wrong, or show them
they are wrong?
By the time a truly intelligent kid has reached the 9th grade, they have
been told so many times "No!" emphatically "You are wrong!" without any
reasoning given other than what is in the books is the truth, and you
shouldn't question what is in the books, that they rebel against the school
system. The same may hold true for a truly intelligent kid in the
churches -- "No! What the Bible says is the word of God, and God does not
lie!"
It's kinda a Richard Pryor type statement, "Are you going to believe me? or
your lying eyes?"
For the Christian to go to Iraq, and try to force their religious views on
the people of Iraq is wrong. For Pirsig or anyone else to 'Force' their
views on the culture is just as wrong.
If Quality is the greatest force in the universe, then instead of telling
them they are wrong, you simply show them how Quality is a higher quality
way of looking at things. Quality is just as much a higher quality way over
the fairy tales of science and philsophy as it is the fairy tales of the
Bible. Quality can no more be proven to exist than God, so the Christian can
look at the MOQ as just another set of fairy tales to believe in. Who's
fairy tales you choose to believe will be in accordance to who's side you
are on -- Who has the best signs yelling "Hooray for our side!"?
Is it that God, as with my thoughts on intuition, is too difficult a concept
to deal with in the MOQ? If so, then maybe it would be best to avoid trying
to change the view of the Christians, because if you are going to tell them
they are all stupid, and they believe in fairy tales, they are simply going
to turn around and tell you that it is you who believes in fairy tales.
You may as well try to get the Democrats and Republicans, or the Hell's
Angels and Outlaws to come together.
If you are going to bring East and West together, you are going to have to
take the highest Quality of Eastern and Western philosophy and Eastern and
Western religion and Eastern and Western politics, and let the DQ override
the SQ.
If you truly believe in the concept of Quality, then Quality is in, before,
and after the social patterns as much as it is the inorganic and biological
patterns. If the intellect is to be in charge of changing the social
patterns, then it will take an intellectual psychological view as much as
scientific view to change the thinking of a people who have been cutlurally
and/or neurologically predispositioned to certain predjudices.
I personally feel the Hindus may have the answer. If you believe in God, you
are Hindu. If you are atheist, you are Hindu. If you have a relgion built
upon earth or cosmos or gods, you are Hindu. I could very much imagine that
if you could transport the Native American to India, their sprituality would
be accepted as a part of the Hindu way of life.
The highest Quality intellect is the one that is concerned with advancing
society; not one that holds your ego above the ego of others.
What you think?
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Roghair" <ctr@pacificpartssales.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
> Hello Platt, Chin, All Interested Persons:
>
> Platt, you magnificent bastard! "Secular Fundamentalist?" That is so
> oxymoronic and such brilliant verbiage. A tip of the hat, you never
> disappoint, sir.
>
> Chin, I can tell you that upon my arrival here I was rather upset to find
> God or "Cosmic Intelligence" being pushed. Reason being, I knew Pirsigian
> philosophy to be non-theistic from personal study. I had a lot of anger
and
> resentment toward institutionalized religion generally, and specifically
> Christianity from personal experience. Also, I thought in the MoQ I'd
found
> like minded folk from whom I might gain insight without having to fear
> evangelical muggings. Imagine my disappointment.
>
> On a societal scale, it's at least a little disconcerting for some to
think
> that the world's only superpower, in an obviously cranky, imperialistic
mood
> of late, is driven by policy influenced mainly by a God & dogma for which
a
> rational argument cannot be made and for which there is no empirical
> evidence.
>
> These things in addition to many others would bother me a lot. As a
result,
> I would vent frustration here. Then Sam put forth the proposition that
> maybe I was "karma dumping" and suggested some reading which I accepted
and
> pursued. I decided Sam was right (thank you, Sam, by the way) and gave
the
> whole of it some further thought. Then something changed.
>
> It wasn't my belief or non-belief that changed. I did; I shifted a bit.
I
> realized, in the grand scheme of everything, it's all moot. Or mu,
> possibly. Can't decide which--maybe both.
>
> Eventually, Zoroastrianism, Jews for Jesus, The Mormon Church, Intelligent
> Design, Gnostic Biker Talmud Puritans, Zwingliism, Christianity and other
> such silliness will go the way of Zeus & Co.
>
> Personally, I think functioning in society is challenging enough without
all
> the cognitive dissonance and suspension of reason necessary to
> intellectually dedicate oneself to institutionalized monotheism, but
> whatever blows your hair up, ya know?
>
> Anyway, I think of the MoQ now as containing "God" as a human construct
> (I'll use "God" as a catch-phrase for "cosmic intelligence," "intelligent
> designer," "voice from on high," "that voice I hear when I get high,"
etc.)
> straddling the line between the societal and intellectual level. God was
> born on Main street in "Any town," Societal Level, don't get me wrong,
> probably in a log cabin between a glowing Christmas Tree and warm hearth
w/
> Bing Crosby crooning in the background, Yule log, the whole nine
yards--all
> very Norman Rockwell. He still spends the majority of his time there,
> surrounded by fans and well-wishers.
>
> In the MoQ though, he's being dragged up to the intellectual level,
> reluctantly, I think.
>
> To answer your question more directly, I think what sets off the "Secular
> Fundamentalists" (ha!) so much is the perception of holy rolling
opportunism
> by the evangelical antagonists who have chosen this forum as a stage
> suitable for flexing their false premise muscle in support of what amounts
> to little more than a collection fairy tales.
>
> Or maybe not. What do I know anyway?
>
> I'm off now to have "Secular Fundamentalist" printed on my business cards!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck- Secular Fundamentalist, Radical Atheist
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
> On Behalf Of Platt Holden
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:47 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org; owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> Subject: Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
>
> Hi Chin,
>
> > I know people get upset here when you speak of "Cosmic Intelligence," or
> > the brain and mind separately, or the idea of a master mind at the
center
> > of the universe is going to upset them even more.
> >
> > I have to ask - What is this show of emotion all about? I've seen bikers
> > who hated other gangs less than Christians are hated here. To me,
> > Judeo-Christian, Islam, or Deity Zen is just as likely to hold the key
as
> > science or astrology, or Humanity Zen, Nature Zen, or Nature
spirituality
> -
> > or mathematics. It seems the question of mathematics being the immortal
> > principle has not been settled.
>
> Any mention of the supernatural drives secular fundamentalists crazy for
> the simple reason that they must sever the people's relationship with God
> in order to gain full control over them. So long as free people believe
> that their basic moral rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness come from God and not from other men, attempts to remove those
> rights by political means (coercion) will be resisted. Thus, socialist
> planners must take every opportunity to disabuse people of their religious
> beliefs. Fortunately, in the U.S. their efforts have hardly made a
> dent.
>
> Although Pirsig is an atheist, his "naturalistic" moral structure holds
> freedom to be the highest value, thus supporting and protecting the ideals
> of individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from those who
> would alter them for the sake of some social level scheme promoted in the
> name of "the public good."
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Fri Jan 14 2005 - 00:58:35 GMT