From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Aug 25 2005 - 07:04:10 BST
Hi Sam --
On 8/24, commenting on Ian's denial that the MoQ is "anything like a cult or
a
religion", you remarked:
> Well, Struan's irony is drawing on something - I don't think he would use
> that particular form of language unless he had that perception as well.
>
> What I'm talking about is the way in which disagreements consistently tend
> to be interpreted (by some) as 'you haven't understood it yet'. The MoQ is
> 'inspired', therefore it cannot be wrong, therefore if you disagree with
it
> there must be something wrong with you - ie, you haven't grasped it yet,
you
> must still be in the grip of SOM etc. Once you have understood it, then
> you're free of the clutches of SOM and it all makes sense. To be specific,
> it's a form of gnosticism. There is esoteric knowledge, associated with
> particular (pure) experiences - called DQ here - and once you have gained
> that knowledge, absorbed that insight, then you are on the inside. You
share
> in the mysteries.
I say "aye" to that. In fact, I also alluded to the MoQ as a "cult
movement" back in May of this year:
> I'm sorry if it seems gratuitous, but everything I've seen relating to the
> MoQ and its followers strongly suggests that it is a cult movement. It
> leans heavily to the liberal left (with a Harley as its rebel trademark),
> caters to the secularist elite, and is supported by a cadre of RMP-quoting
> loyalists who see that their reclusive leader's pronouncements are the
last
> word on every subject.
This brought a sharp reprimand from the MD elders (including my being
corrected on the bike model), their indignity of course only adding
credibility to my assertion. While I don't know the details of the hoax
staged at the Liverpool convention, I think it is reasonable to assume that
outsiders with minimal knowledge of Pirsig and his novels would be quick to
draw the same conclusion.
In many ways I see ZMM and LILA being used by the acolytes as the old and
new testaments of a rote-learning process for the newer participants. This
applies not only to the sacred terms and metaphors used by the Master to
communicate his mystical doctrine, but to freshly contributed ideas and
perspectives which are dogmatically force-fitted into the Quality heirarchy
as if to qualify for the RMP impra mater.
I can appreciate the fact that, as a "dedicated" website, this forum exists
primarily to explore the philosophy laid out by MoQ's founder. At the same
time, it would seem that such exploration is hampered when well-meaning
criticisms and suggestions are discouraged or made to appear juvenile.
Despite the fact that several of the charter members have pointed out
discrepancies and inadequacies in this philosophy, not the least of which is
the absence of a formal metaphysical thesis, offers to help correct these
deficiencies are seldom if ever seriously considered.
As a consequence, the MD has sadly become an endless repetition of circular
debates over dialectical matters which one would expect to have been
resolved years before. I find it ironic that a philosophy extolling the
virtues of biological and social evolution towards "betterness" finds itself
mired in its own static patterns, seemingly unable to evolve to a higher
level. Certainly this is not due to any lack of philosophical knowledge or
talent, which the MD displays in abundance; rather, I believe it is the
result of an indoctrination peculiar to this movement which resists change,
resents new insight, and (if the truth be known) languishes in its cult
status.
Essentially with you,
Ham
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 : Thu Aug 25 2005 - 07:38:25 BST