From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 19 2004 - 19:08:33 GMT
Hi guys
nothing to add, but just like to encourage you both
and say that this is interesting stuff. It seems to me
very encouraging how diverse us Pirsig lovers are.
It is very good that we can all discuss these things
together and show an interest in everything human,
maybe there is a future for a more Pirsigian and open
attitude to life.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Khoo Hock Aun" <hockaun@pc.jaring.my>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Islam
>
> Hello Khalil,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I have the following to add:
>
> Khalil:
> > Sometimes the Sufis go too far and think that they are above or beyond
> > the Law and this leads to corruption at other times the jurists, those
> who
> > believe in the primacy of the Law gain the upper hand and the relgious
> > community begins to stagnate. Islam and Sufism has suffered mostly in
> > recent times through the colonisation of Islamic countries and through
> the > rise of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia which has had petro dollars at its
>
> > disposal to propagate fundamentalist/literalist intepretation of Islam,
>
> > mostly devoid of mercy, compassion or beauty.
>
> Khoo:
> I like to begin with the premise that the Sufis have evolved an
> unstructured view of reality, accommodated within a universe of
> God/Allah's making, although one need not attribute it in name to either
> God, Allah or any Supreme Being. Thus the Sufis emphasise; "You are your
> own Mecca"
> signifies one's own own primary role in achieving enlightenment/salvation.
> As a starting point, this shares common grounds with all other religions,
> rather than to insist that as each religion might, that they alone hold
> the monopoly for entry into heaven.
>
> Khalil:
> > Didn't Pirsig say in Lila that DQ without the anchor of rituals and
> > formalised morals becomes destructive and that rituals without DQ
> > stagnate and stultify?
> > One of the problems that Islam has and this is true of many religions
> is
> > that the form and rituals become an end in themselves rather than a
> > means to an end. The religion can become its own idol. This is not
> >necessarily endemic within religion itself but is a trap that man can
> fall into.
> >
> > As a metaphor I think of the human being. The skeleton of and by itself
> is
> > neither attractive nor useful, but by the same token flesh and blood
> and
> > spirit without a skeleton cannot exist. They need each other to
> provide
> > form, strength, stability and ability. This is static and dynamic
> qualities
> > combined for optimum effectiveness. So it is with religion it needs
> both
> > form and spirit.
>
> Khoo:
> It is the monopolistice frame of mind that dictates the literalists,
> traditionalists and fanatics, not only of Islam and wherever you find a
> religion that cites a certain absolute Authority or Law. While the
> skeleton holds the human body, it is still only a scafoldding of bones.
>
> Khalil:
> > I don't entirely agree with David that MOQ is mostly about science and
> > nature. Lila is subtitled an enquiry into morals. Nietzsche said that
> > without religion there is no morality, so an enquiry into morals must
> have a
> > discussion about religion within it. Of course its true, without a
> fixed
> > reference point morals become relative and subjective, exactly part of
> the
> > moral morass that Western culture finds itself in.
> >
> > In Islam the authority rests within the Qur'an, for Muslims the
> revealed
> > Book of God, and the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammed, who >
> was said to be the living embodiment of the Qur'an. Islam has been
> going
> > through a very static phase because it has been held that the
> > interpretation of the Qur'an is somehow fixed. But there are signs that
> >things are changing. Language itself is another example of a
> >static/dynamic interplay.Words have roots but their meaning changes
> >according to time,culture and the understanding of the recipient.
> >
> > Between the 7th and 15th/16th centuries the main driving force behind
> > scientific endeavour and enquiry came from the Muslim scholars,
> > particularly in the fields of arithmatic, algebra, astronomy, chemistry
> (all > words derived from Arabic) as well as biology, geometry and
> medical
> > science. It was the Muslims of Spain who rediscovered the Greek
> > philosophers, translated their writings into Arabic and re-introduced
> them > to Europe. OK you can blame the Muslims if you like!!
>
> Khoo:
> In terms of the subject-object divide, I think that Islam as a result has
>
> more in common with Christainity and other Western religions than Eastern
> religions stemming from the Greek influences in the perception and
> pursuit of knowledge. Both consequently experience the conflict that
> comes from not being able to reconcile the existence of the self in a
> transient and material environment.
>
> Khalil:
> > Muslim philosophy/cosmology had 2 strands but interlinked. The first
> was
> > the intellectual, reflective, rationalistic and the second was the
> > spiritual, mystical, revelatory. The first was more influential in the
> West
> > the second was more influential within the Muslim community.
> >
> > Both cosmologies are firmly rooted in the revelation of the Qur'an but
> > synthesised within them the teachings of the Greek philosphers and
> other
> > traditons and have as their starting and finishing point the Divine
> Unity.
> > Islamic science was pursued as a means of understanding God and the
> > Creation, the Creation is seen as a reflection and manifestation of the
> > Creator.
>
> Khoo:
> By the first, you dont mean Sufism, do you ? I find the intellectual and
> rationalistic strand as pervasive within the Muslim community in their
> attempts to build a social order and structure based on the Quran and its
> edicts. The spiritual, mystical and revelatory strand of Islam
> unfortunately has been constrained and confined to the strict
> interpretations of Quran. It is interesting the term "Islamic Science" is
> used, as opposed to a Christain Science or just secular Science in
> general. Does "Islamic Science"
> embody a value system different from "Christian Science" ?
>
> Khalil:
> > What we have in Western science today is it becoming ever more diverse
> >and fragmented. Knowledge for knowledge's sake but without any
> > cohesive principle. With the proliferation of such knowledge actually
> >comes confusion rather than increased understanding because one
> >dicipline has no longer any means of reference to another discipline.
>
> > As mentioned earlier unlike the Bible and Church dogma, scientific
> >discovery tends to enhance rather than diminish the authority of the
> >Qur'an.
> >
> > Bringing this back to MOQ my understanding is that Pirsig's frustration
> with
> > Western philosphy and understanding is in its limited world view which
> > negates a whole realm of existence because it can't be observed and
> > measured. The Islamic view point would be exactly the same. The extent
> > to which MOQ and Islam converge or diverge is in the understanding and
> > interpretation of Quality.
>
> Khoo:
> If one takes the most enlightened view of Islam, it projects a value
> system of equanamity and harmony for its followers and the activities
> that they undertake, be it academic or social, even commercial in nature.
> But on the ground, the vision of a progressive Islamic society is
> nowhere realised, in the past nor even now.
>
> If you say that every scientific discovery provides further illumination
> on the Creator's universe, isn't this the same position as the dogmas of
> the Christian Church as well ?
>
> On the other hand I see the amoral technological alienation of scientific
> objectivisim as equally challenging to Muslims as they are to Christians.
> In this regard, Dr Khan's motives to build an Islamic bomb as a counter
> to the Hindu bomb and his nuclear black market network were due more to
> his greed than any desire to further the cause of Islam. In moral terms,
> would
> Islam have countenanced an Islamic Bomb ?
>
> Khalil:
> > What we are seeing now is a clash between the Western world view and
> > the Islamic world view. Both have become corrupt, what they see in each
> > other is their own reflection. If you're a pessimist its downhill all
> the way
> > from here. If you're an optimist like me, you see that a synthesis
> will
> > emerge from the 2 views that will be creative and dynamic and will in
> one
> > form or another include a MOQ.
> >
>
> Khoo:
> In my view, both the Western world view and the Islamic world view are not
> that different. The Western-Islamic World Clash is a political one, a
> fight over oil and territorial resources.
>
> The subject-object dichotomy in both have their roots from Aristolean
> Greece; The Judeo-Christian roots of Western Culture are not too
> different from the Mohammedean roots of Islamic Culture. As a philosophy
> Islam is a western philosophy; while Sufism is an eastern manifestation
> of the religion
> Western culture has become corrupt as a result of the subject object
> divide which promotes the primacy of the self in a material context. The
> same goes for an Islam that has seen wealth emanate from what is a a
> geographical accident, faciltating the political ambitions of the
> religious leaders who
> place themselves above others.
>
> Of course I think the Sufis have more in common with the MOQ than those
> who lead the sermons in the Mosques of Reason, to use a Pirsigian term.
> I share your optimistic views, Morever, as an incurable optimist, I also
> believe that even if everything turns out for the worst, it will also be
> for the better.
>
>
> Rgds
> Khoo Hock Aun
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
>
>
> 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 : Thu Feb 19 2004 - 20:24:02 GMT