RE: MD is God real?

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 01:33:56 BST

  • Next message: Chris Vlaar: "Re: MD Biocosm"

    Sam and all MOQers:

    Sam Norton said:
    I relate (conceptually) the MoQ and standard Christian doctrine, along the
    following lines: God the Father = Quality, God the Son = Static Quality
    (embodied, expressing the different levels) and God the Spirit = DQ. That
    isn't fully worked out, but it 'gestures' towards a way they might be

    dmb says:
    As I explained in another thread earlier today, I think the MOQ is
    compatible with philosophical mysiticism. And it seems that the equation
    you've expressed here just doesn't add up. Pirsig divides Quality in two,
    static and dynamic. In order to relate the MOQ to the christian trinity,
    you've somehow managed to make one divided by two equal three. You've added
    back a whole version of that which was divided in the first place, so that
    you can add one to two and have three, which we need for a trinity. Now I
    suppose you're gonna tell me that 2=3 and anyone who says otherwise is
    hopelessly mired in SOM thinking and is deluded by the dogmatism of

    Pirsig says when DQ is identified with religous mysticism it produces an
    avalanche of information about DQ. What's wrong relating the MOQ to that
    kind of Christianity for an understanding. Why even try to relate particular
    theological doctrines when Pirsig tells us what's up so clearly? Why avoid
    the answers provided in favor of such a tortured stretch?

    Sam said:
    Certainly I tend to think of Quality as a comparable term to God (or
    sometimes 'meaning'), although - as you might expect - I think there are
    some significant differences. Which is why I would also add a difference to
    DMB's amusing list: Quality doesn't care about the individuals lost in 9/11,
    only the actual and potential intellectual patterns (ideas). God sees the
    individuals lost as precious in their own right.

    dmb replies:
    Quality doesn't care about those who died on 9/11, but God does? I don't
    even know where to begin in untangling the misconceptions contained in this
    ridulously emotional and outrageously manipulative assertion. Should I ask
    why Quality cares about intellectual patterns and not individuals? No, I
    understand which Pirsigism have been distorted to make the conclusion.
    Should I ask what relevance 9/11 plays in this debate, other than to pull
    the heart strings and obscure the mind with fear and dread? Only a heartless
    sociopath would reject theism, is that what you're saying? No, everyone will
    see through that like clean plate glass. Instead I'll be generous and make
    Sam's point in a way that is NOT confusing and sentimental.

    Philosophical mystics do not believe in a personal god with whom we can have
    a relationship, while theists do.

    To "care" about those 9/11 victims is a human quality and so since
    non-theists don't anthropomorphize the ground of being like that, they
    wouldn't ascribe such a feeling to the conceptually unknown, not without
    having their tongues planted firmly in their cheeks. The mystic says that
    YOU are the Christ and that YOU and the father are One. The whole idea of a
    great overseer who holds his children as precious stands opposed to this
    unitive vision. This separation from god is the theological equivalent of
    SOM in that it posits a fundamental divide between creator and creation. The
    mystic, again, says that this is the illusion to be overcome.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 24 2004 - 01:38:51 BST