Re: MD quality religion

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:38:22 GMT

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD What is really anthropocentric?"

    Hi Don (Drose):

    > Some questions for you.
    >
    > > For me the best religion is pursuing Dynamic Quality by creating and
    > > contemplating art as well as by pursuing beauty in all my endeavors.
    >
    > How does this in any way differ in kind from any other religious activity?

    No need for intermediaries (church, rituals, priests, gurus) to experience
    DQ.
     
    > > I reject religions based on faith including Christianity and Islam.
    >
    > Explain to me how the basis of your, uh, faith in DQ is qualitatively any
    > different than a reasoned faith in God, Allah, etc.

    DQ is directly experienced and thus empirical. Faith is low quality--a
    willingness to believe in falsehoods.
     
    > > I reject all religious sects because their rituals and practices
    > > promulgate static social patterns.
    >
    > Do they? How so?

    Traditions are static.
     
    > > I reject social moral codes based on divine revelation such as the 10
    > > commandments because they have no intellectual base.
    >
    > I'm sure God would argue that one:-) What makes the commandment "Though
    > shalt not commit murder" any less a valid social value than a law on the
    > books derived solely from the mind of a man?

    The commandment is based on a fairy tale. The law is based on social
    values. A society could not survive if murder was legal.
     
    > > I seek to understand the conceptually unknown through art because its
    > > essence is, as Pirsig asserts, aesthetic. Thus I find some religious art
    > > to be inspirational and revealing of DQ.
     
    > You have postulated elsewhere that there is "good" and "bad" art,
    > specifically in the form of music. I have to asssume that you use some
    > objective criteria to establish what is "more" aesthetic. Or is it "merely"
    > what you like? If Bach is aesthetically superior to Rush, there must be
    > some objective quality that makes it so?

    "Objectivity" in art derives from the combined opinions of those who know
    what they are talking about--art historians and critics. What is "more"
    aesthetic to me personally is art which engenders an experience of DQ.
     
    > > For me, art and beauty can make a direct connection to Dynamic Quality.
    > > That's my religion. IMO there's none better.
    >
    > For me, ritual and practice can make a direct connection to Dynamic
    > Quality.

    Fine. Go with what works for you. Care to give us some examples?

    Peace to you, too, friend Don.
    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:44:56 GMT