From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 07 2005 - 18:44:41 BST
In response to Sam's original post in this thread ..
OK Sam, so here is a more considered (long) response ...
(I see in this long mail, there are also points I've resonded to in
separate extracts.)
I'm still left with only one beef.
Whatever the language, is there any common-sense sense in which God (or
Quality) is causal, intelligent, purposeful ?
Inserted below [IG] .....
On 9/2/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
>
>
> You challenged me (off list) to be more forthcoming about what I believe. My
> long posts last month in the 'What it means to believe in the orthodox
> Christian God' are part of an answer, but I suspect what you are after is
> some positive description of how I integrate the MoQ with my Christian
> understandings. So herewith a 'Christian interpretation' of the MoQ; an
> 'interpretation' because the MoQ as it stands is clearly non-Christian,
> indeed some parts are anti-Christian. However, I am comfortable that those
> bits can be amended ('interpreted') with a result which is still
> recognisably the MoQ, but which is compatible with Christianity, as I
> understand it.
>
>
>
> So firstly I'll sketch out how I understand the levels, and where they
> correspond with traditional Christian language. I'll also say something
> about the nature of religious belief, concentrating on Wittgenstein's notion
> of 'grammar', and I'll say something about your understanding of theism. I'll
> conclude with some very speculative points about the Trinity. I'll try to be
> as bold and clear as possible, but with the caveat that this is very much a
> 'work in progress' as my thoughts are still evolving. It should answer what
> you need, though (I hope).
>
>
>
> How I understand the levels:
>
> - basic 'engineering' of how the levels work, I'm not aware of
> having any differences, as set out in my eudaimonic paper. So acceptance of
> patterns of value, 'machine language interface', "natural selection" (with
> quibbles about the word 'natural') etc etc
>
> - level one, inorganic, no difference to standard MoQ (Christian
> language might call it 'dust');
[IG] OK - I've used the "ashes to ashes" metaphor myself in an
unfinished piece I'm working on.
>
> - level two, biological, no difference to standard MoQ (Christian
> language might call it 'the flesh');
[IG] OK, but "It ain't the meat, it's the motion" to quote the song.
>
> - level three, social, probably some distinct differences. I see the
> social realm as being a) the realm of language, in the Wittgensteinian
> sense, and b) the realm of group desires (in a Girardian sense, which I
> haven't talked much about here). I think it is what Christian language
> refers to as 'the world'; it's also the realm of the 'ego', the ego being
> the agglomeration of social patterns which respond to the social pressures
> (eg flattery produces pride which encourages social cohesion). It is the
> realm of 'other people's desires';
>
> - level four, what I have called eudaimonic, major differences from
> the standard understanding of the MoQ, which you're familiar with. Christian
> language would call this the level of the 'soul'. I see this as the arena of
> 'autonomous judgement', by which I mean it is not conditioned by the social
> patterns. I see the ego (social patterns) as the 'machine language interface'
> between levels 3 and 4. I see the extent to which that ego becomes
> transparent to Quality as a) the expression/ salvation of 'soul', and b) the
> development of 'freedom' (I accept Pirsig's account of free will, which I
> think is essentially a restatement of Augustine). This is not a discrete
> level, in that the 'top' is open to Quality in a way the others are not
> (pragmatically, not theoretically). I think the language of Christian
> mysticism maps comfortably onto this understanding, ie the soul needs to be
> stripped bare of all the level 2 and level 3 influences, at which point it
> becomes 'transparent' to God (quality), achieves union with God, expresses
> the nature of God etc.
[IG] OK, For this "god" debate I'm happy we just think of 3 and 4 as
the "cultural" layers - the things we and our egos do when "thinking
with meat". (Later I pick up on and agree with your 3 v 4 distinction
in the shared language sense.)
>
> Now, a bit more about religious language. What I often 'rail' about,
> concerning the misunderstandings of Christianity, is that the grammar of
> religious faith is misunderstood. That is, religious language does not
> function in the way that scientific language functions, and to construe
> religious language as making scientific claims is to necessarily
> misinterpret it.
>
>
>
> Scientific language grew out of Christian language (the shrub before the
> tree) but has incorporated certain mistakes _within_Christian_theology_ . In
> other words, the mistake about the grammar of religious language happened
> first within Christianity itself, and has been contained within the
> development of science on what might be called a 'genetic' basis.
>
>
>
> I would characterise the difference like this: the 'grammar' of scientific
> discourse is abstract; the 'grammar' of religious discourse is 'thick' or
> 'concrete'. By which I mean that the claims which science makes (*claims*)
> are for independence from social context.
[IG] Absolutely not. Only the hypthesis disproving / falsification
aspect of science claims social independence. The other 99% of it is
firmly social / cultural based.
> Whereas I see religious language
> as necessarily bound up with social context, they can't be understood apart
> from the social context, and, to a very great extent, they are concerned
> with the structuring and maintenance of the social order. Religious language
> gains its meaning from its use in the various local language games that make
> up the practice of religious faith. It is less concerned with correct
> external reference than with the orientation of behaviour, and therefore
> life. However, pursuing that latter necessarily involves some external
> reference, but it's not the primary source or motivation for religious
> language (as it is for scientific language). This religious language can be
> oriented in three ways: suppression of level 2 patterns, maintenance of
> level 3 patterns,
[IG] Generally don't agree, but hold onto "maintenance" - I pick up on
it later - maintaining social order over bilogical. (Can't find the
other quote - about the maintenance of social order in level 3 ??? -
Anyway I agree that this kind of religion provides a valualbe force of
conservatism in maintaining pragmatic static social patterns that have
served society well, and need not be thrown out with the bathwater
when over zealous revolutionaries come along, at least not too quickly
anyway. BUT this is just a social force (backed up with
pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, because it needs arguments, and the
truth is hard to explain) and it must give way when DQ advances.
Religion definitely has value here, no argument.
> and enabling of level 4 patterns. I think different
> religions can be evaluated on the basis of how well they do these three
> things.
[IG] No problems that some religions are pretty open minded to
"honest" intellect, but it's god that bothers me, not religions per
se.
>
>
>
> Moreover, religious language is necessarily mythological, ie narrative
> based.
[IG] Good science (any good quality knowledge) is narrative based.
> As you know I don't accept the scientific claims for being
> independent of social context; what I think has happened is that one
> mythology (rich and religious) has been replaced by another mythology (thin
> and 'scientific') - which is actually responsible for the ills which Pirsig
> diagnoses.
[IG] See my earlier wider view of the social context of science, but
of course this is what drew me to Pirsig. Stuff which had previously
been seen as "non-scientific" (non-logical positivist etc.) is shown
to be just as high quality - so narratives based on myths and mystries
have just as much positive quality as those based on logic. Still no
god here, just a matter of how we "know" what is "good" to believe.
> Any language which overcomes those ills is necessarily religious
> and mythological.
[IG] Mythology-based narratives OK, but not religious. Not "blind"
faith, just suspension of disbelief, based on the evidence of the real
(whole) world. If by religion all you mean is a statement of what you
believe then OK, but I think the expalantory narrative matters.
>
> So religious language is necessarily, limited, local and partial. Yet I
> would also insist that it is possible to discriminate between religious
> languages and determine which are better and which worse. Which is what I
> think gave rise to level 4 in the first place, as discussed in my eudaimonia
> paper. I think that the different religious languages can be assessed by
> their contribution to human flourishing, or, more generally, by their
> Quality.
[IG] Yep, not just human, but yes. Discrimiating good from bad (up
from down in the MoQ) is the whole point. But still no god here ?
>
> Level 4 I see as necessarily wordless. This is a corollary of the private
> language argument that I mentioned, from Wittgenstein, which demonstrates
> that language is necessarily shareable, ie it is a social level phenomenon.
[IG] Knowing my limited first-hand knowledge of Wittgenstein, I'd
agree with this. Our immediate "consciousness" of the world is either
language-free (pre-intellectual) or a "private" language
(post-intellectual) of symbols, metaphors and tokens (possibly
exploiting useful bits of the external natural language, cos it's
efficient to do so, in a Darwinist kind of way, but hoilistically,
private). The shared language of communication is social, by
definition, agreed.
> This doesn't mean that it can't be used for higher purposes, what it does
> mean, I think, is that it cannot escape being level 3. In the same way that
> agriculture can be a biological phenomenon organised by the social level, I
> think that many languages (eg science and mathematics) are level 3 phenomena
> organised by level 4 understandings. Language cannot encapsulate level 4,
> for this reason. Hence, 'the finger pointing at the moon'.
[IG] Cannot encapsulate ? Hmm. Not prefectly, that's true, hence
interminable philosophical debates, but as a pragmatist, I see that as
a matter of choice. Level 4 is "incomplete"; always will be, but that
doesn't mean it can't be "explained". Wot still no god ?
>
> I see level 4 as being fundamentally oriented from the virtues; the virtues
> being those static patterns which enable resistance to social pressures
> (honesty and integrity etc - what the Sophists were teaching, originally). I
> see the various intellectual patterns like SOM, mathematics, Aristotelean
> logic - but also theatre, art, film, poetry (especially poetry) - as being
> the fruits of those virtues. Those virtues I think are the sinews of the
> soul; the soul being simply a level 4 pattern, more or less open to Quality
> (= salvation?).
[IG] Good enough for me, that's how Pirsig arrived at Quality. Wot
still ... ? Hang on "salvation" ? From what ? From ignorance maybe, by
understanding itself. Soul ? I have that wide interpretation of soul
as the whole of (non-material) mind / consciousness, not just the
whole of the GOF-rational bits, and not just the whacky mystical bits
either - the whole thing.
>
> The God question. I see Quality as one of the names of God, as final and
> accurate as calling God Father or Rock (no more, no less). I think it has
> advantages in terms of healing the breach between science and faith, I think
> it has consequent disadvantages in terms of actually living out the
> consequences of pursuing Quality. So in general terms I see no conflict
> between MoQ and belief in God, on this score.
[[IG] No problem with this kind of god, terminological metaphor. (I
believe we will have an issue if we see it as somehow "beyond" the
whole natural world - which I don't see as necessary - I live with
recursion.)
>
> You describe God as "a purposeful, willful, intentional, transcendent
> "intelligent" causal entity". Firstly, God is not an entity. Hang on to the
> point I made before about God never being a member of a class. We know what
> an entity is - God is not one. Here we come up against 'the limits of
> language', in that no language can capture what the word 'God' refers to
> (which might suggest that construing the word 'God' on the model of
> reference is likely to mislead..) Now I'm not clear on where the modifiers,
> once you've let go of 'entity', are different between Quality and God, if at
> all. I'll think further about this point and come back to it.
[IG] THE CRUX. Hang on stop playing word games. I'm well let go of
entities, just running out of words. Whether God / Quality is an
entity, class, individual, form, essence, thing, event, concept,
process, metaphor, noumenon, anything, whatever - plain old "thing" -
does IT / HE cause anything (in any common sense use of the word
cause) ? Does it cause anything with any intelligent foresight or
purpose ? Quality explains HOW things happen, but not WHY in any
teleological sense. This is my only beef (in any language). It's so
nihilist too, but that's not why I don't believe it, I just don't see
the slightest scrap of evidence or explanation for this "purposeful"
point. It's the "religion is for wimps" argument - I know.
>
> Finally some more specific things about intepreting Christianity using the
> language of the MoQ.
>
> Jesus I see as someone who was wholly open to Quality, in such a way that
> everything he did expressed that Quality. He did this without breaking any
> of the social level patterns which had formed him (Pirsig's point that you
> don't need to destroy to transcend). This is what Christians mean when they
> talk about him being 'without sin'.
[IG] No problem with Jesus or Christainity in principle - it's
imperfect like all human endeavours (the motives of some
self-professed christians is highly suspect too, but they're also
human.) My only problem would be if a christian (even a nice one like
you) answered yes to either of my last two questions.
>
> The crucifixion is the conflict between level 3 and level 4 (and absolutely
> essential for understanding the claims of Christianity).
[IG] OK. Isn't mythology wonderful narrative for explaining the Level
4 stuff we find so hard to put into any other closed kinds of
language.
>
> The resurrection a demonstration that the destruction of level 2 by level 3
> makes no impact on level 4.
>
>
>
> The Eucharist is the level 3 rite which reaffirms the establishment of level
> 4 (through crucifixion and resurrection), and provides the most important
> virtues for the growth of level 4 in a person (food for the soul).
[IG] All good stuff.
>
>
>
> I think there are some ways to correlate the language of the Trinity with
> the MoQ 'Trinity' of Quality - SQ - DQ, ie that 'Quality' is God the Father,
> SQ is God the Son (the visible form, fully expressing all four levels); DQ
> is the Spirit. We are to be so caught up in DQ that we become wholly open to
> Quality and thereby come to resemble Jesus in expressing SQ on all the
> levels. And they are all the same, ie our eventual end is to become
> identical with Quality, indistinguishable from it.
[IG] Becoming identical with ? I can see as powerful, rhetorical /
metaphorical expressive, but not literal. Becoming fully acquainted
with it, a complete understanding, full enlightenment, to become a
part of Quality even.
>
> The mystical path I see as the cultivation of level 4. That's what I see
> Christianity as all about.
[IG] I rather see it as what the pursuit of knowledge, understanding
and quality is all about. Apart from some good mythological
narratives, and practices for re-inforcing these, I don't see what
Christianity brings to it, other than some highly misleading metaphors
about Him "causing" things to happen for reasons of "purposeful
design". Please deny these or explain.
>
> I see the language of 'immediate experience' as the importation of a level 3
> mythology (the social respectability of 'empiricism', and all the fruits
> following from it) to function as a 'pseudo-level 4', that is, the pursuit
> of a 'mystical experience' is delusional (anti-mystical) and tied up with
> the 'thin' social practices associated with scientific influence. I think it
> is precisely a social pattern. I think the 'orthodox' account of level 4 as
> intellectual is a perpetuation of Platonic mythology, resulting in a form of
> gnosticism (a correct understanding provides salvation) - this is where the
> MoQ as presently constituted tries to replace religion, and is what lies
> behind my 'cult' allegation. (Tho' let's be clear, I only think there are a
> handful of people who actually DO let the MoQ function as a religion. They're
> the most Platonist interpreters).
>
>
>
> I see the mystical as the cultivation of wisdom. Hence the emphasis on
> honesty etc as the foundation for what comes later.
[IG] Completely agree. Just don't see a causal, intelligent,
purposeful Quality (or God) in this. (The cult, religious aspects of
beliveing in the MoQ I deny and reject as dangerous. I only believe it
because I haven't found the slightest evidence in 50 years of life
inlcuding about 20 or formal education and 10 of thoughful reading and
research, to suggest it's wrong in any essential aspect. Until then I
merely suspend disbelief and scream "show me I'm wrong". Yes, I am
that crank.)
>
> I think there are lots of other things that could be said, but that's
> probably enough for now. I hope that gives you a much clearer idea of 'where
> I'm coming from'.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Sam
>
> "I don't want them to believe me, I just want them to think." - Marshall
> McLuhan
>
>
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 : Wed Sep 07 2005 - 19:08:15 BST