LS Program MOQ Catechism

From: John and Ruth Beasley (beasley@internetnorth.com.au)
Date: Wed Mar 03 1999 - 21:50:04 GMT


To Mary and Squad
"How does one explain the Metaphysics of Quality in 45 minutes or less to people who have
never heard of it? That is, how does one reduce the MOQ to a chatechism?"

I cannot agree that reduction to a chatechism has anything much to do with Mary's initial
question, which was "a challenge ... I've been asked to do a 'sermon' on the MOQ".

The quote from Pirsig that accompanies the topic actually only serves to muddy the waters.
In the quote Phaedrus wishes he had a chatechism with which to hit back at Rigel. But turn to
the end of the novel (Ch 32 - p413 in my version) and this whole approach is upended.

The idol, which is a branch of Phaedrus' own personality, says "You did one moral thing on
this whole trip, which saved you... You told Rigel that Lila had quality." "The only reason you
did that was because he caught you by surprise and you couldn't think of your usual
intellectual answer, but you turned him around ... If it hadn't been for that one moral act you'd
be headed down the coast tomorrow with a lifetime of Lila ahead of you".

Pirsig's challenge, to himself and to us, is to live with quality. He says "The creation of any
metaphysics is an immoral act since it is a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a
higher mystic one." "It attempts to capture the dynamic within a static pattern."(p408) To my
mind the only sin worse is to try to make a metaphysics into a chatechism, in the hope of
using it to somehow bludgeon people into becoming believers. It is the fate of every prophet
to have his words twisted and used to promote the opposite of what he taught. Let's not do
this with Pirsig.

To misquote Pirsig (p417) "You can't just tell people about [quality] and expect them to listen.
They already know ... The cultural immune system will keep them from hearing anything
else." He was actually talking about Indians, but I think the principle holds. Dusenberry, his
expert on Indians, "didn't think objectivity had any place in the proper conduct of
anthropological study" (p31) "The trouble with the objective approach ... is that you don't
learn much that way." (p32) This might be good advice for a sermon.

So, responding to Mary's original question, what prompted the request for your sermon? Was
there someone in the congregation with an issue which Pirsig's metaphysics might address?
Were people just curious enough about how you are fired up about the MOQ to ask you to
share your values? Unless you can connect with the vitality in the request you will end up
with an arid presentation which will at best stimulate some thought amongst those who stay
awake. If there is nothing else, try exploring the quality of the actual experience of being the
preacher in front of the congregation, get in touch with what excites you about the MOQ, and
with "directness and simplicity" speak of what it is that moves you at that moment. Not the
usual recipe for a sermon, I suppose, but better than a chatechism.

John B

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:38 GMT