From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2004 - 17:51:22 BST
Dear Wim,
How good to clash (s)words with you once more! I'll take advantage of this post to pick up the
'hearing the music' point that you left with me a little while back. But first:
> You hypocrite: 'can't resist the temptation to add my own two pennies
> worth'!
> You mean that you -backed by The Church- have a monopoly on Wisdom and are
> glad for this opportunity to express it. (-;
I would never claim to have a monopoly on Wisdom! I do think that there is much ignorance abroad
which, as an ever-so-humble servant of the Truth, I might have a modest opportunity to alleviate :o)
(and now you can call me a pompous ass as well as a hypocrite ;-)
> 1) You -quite uncritically- quote Scott: "What I find annoying are critics
> of religion who have not studied it. No modern non-fundamentalist theologian
> is ignorant of the value of science, but how many critics of religion are
> familiar with modern theology?"
> As a Quaker I object to equating religion and theology. Theology guides my
> life just as little as chemistry. If anyone wants to criticize my religion,
> please study its practice.
Ah. I don't know about 'quite uncritically' - I was in wholehearted agreement with him, that's all.
We'll doubtless spend a lot of time looking at how theology and practice inter-relate. But for the
record, I don't see theology as something which doesn't partake of practice. Quite the reverse.
> 2) How can distinguishing types of 'beliefs' clarify 'faith'? For me 'faith'
> means 'trust' (in divine guidance, when I open myself for it) and has
> nothing to do with any cognitive content.
Good point. I should have spent a bit more time unpicking the relationship between belief and faith;
I see 'faith' as broadly falling into my type 2 belief, ie it is primarily action-guiding. If your
faith has 'nothing to do with any cognitive content' doesn't that make it unthinkable? Which means
that your sentence above is incoherent, no?
> 3) Science and religion ARE comparable. Both intend to deal with the
> unmeasurable and the unique. Science by reducing it; religion by giving it
> meaning. In their (usual) worst forms they both exploit it: scientists and
> hireling ministers alike get status and income from pretending to be able to
> deal with what others feel unable to deal with.
Disagree with that (and not just the hireling minister crack). I think religion (properly
understood) includes science. Those who claim to have left the illusions of religion behind would
claim the reverse I guess (Dawkins certainly does).
> 4) Asserting 4th level patterns of value (either scientifically or
> theologically based) is 'violent' too in a sense. It restricts people's
> ability to follow DQ.
Can you expand on this please? I'm intrigued, and I might well be sympathetic.
> 5) Both science and religion in their best forms are more than 3rd and 4th
> level patterns of value: they reach out to the 'Meaning of Life' beyond.
> Science and theology (!) by trying to catch and define it; true religion by
> trying to 'live' it.
Partially agree with this. I don't think proper theology actually *does* try and define it. The
creed, for example, is much more a list of 'don't go in that direction' rather than 'go in this
direction'. Which brings me to the hearing music point. You said:
"Can't wait to read your caveats and clarifications of your 'yes' in response to: 'So you accept the
premise that it is the/a goal of religion to make its followers "hear the music for themselves", but
not that this implies making certain kinds of experience available to them? The alternative being
making certain kinds of knowledge available to them? (You wrote about your religious experience of
summer 1990 as "insights".)' My position -as you know- is that of Quakerism: direct, unmediated
availability of experience of divine presence and of divine guidance to everyone. How can reflected
experience, knowledge, be preferable to own experience of divine presence and guidance?"
I think my main problem here is with how we understand 'experience' - and the problem is magnified
because Pirsig has built his MoQ as a type of empiricism, and as time goes on I become more and more
aware of flaws in that foundation. In other words, in the MoQ DQ seems to be defined as a type of
experience - and I think there is too much baggage associated with the word.
How about we make a division between 'sensation' and 'behaviour', thus avoiding the word experience
altogether? What I object to is a sense of 'hearing the music for themselves' as being about the
provision of certain sensations, ie akin to drug induced mystical "experience". What I like about
'hearing the music for themselves' is - if you'll allow a stretching of the analogy, the enabling of
dancing. I see the whole point of a religious tradition as facilitating the dancing, not the
provision of 'bliss' in some form or another. Of course, once someone has 'got it' then they don't
need to be taught any more. But I think teaching is essential for those who haven't yet 'got it'.
Even the Quakers teach about their faith, don't they?
"Unfortunately no-one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself". But that
didn't put Morpheus out of a job, did it?
With friendly greetings to you too, as always.
Sam
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 Oct 14 2004 - 18:50:59 BST