Re: MD On Faith

From: Joseph Maurer (
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 - 19:39:24 BST

  • Next message: Jim Ledbury: "MD John Peel, DJ"

    On 24 October 2004 12:20 AM Sam writes:

    [Sam] eek. That item (ii) should not have had a 'don't' in it, and should
    therefore have read:

    > My position is:

    > (ii) I think it is profoundly misleading to talk about mysticism as an
    > 'experience';

    Hi Sam and all:

    [joe] in a post to Sam on the condemnation of Galileo by the social
    ministers of religion I proposed a triad of verifying a certainty in
    knowledge Faith-mystic-logic, to refute his use of logic to justify the
    ministers. I am sorry for that as I did not explain the Faith-mystic-logic

    [joe] IMO logic is the response in my awareness to the evolution of the
    levels of Quality. The mystic is a description of the way a sentient
    apprehends/experiences DQ. Faith is a gift in awareness which dogmatizes
    experience beyond mystical or logical apprehension/experience, e.g.,

    [joe] in the order of certainty in knowledge Faith is the most certain.
    Mystical knowledge is less certain since all sentients are involved in its
    verification. Metaphysical experience of DQ is mystical. Logic, physics, is
    the least certain as it looks to a mystical description of evolution for
    verification of premises. There are four levels in awareness. Sometimes it
    is obscure to which level to assign the mystical DQ in the argument.

    [joe] IMO it is useless for a dogma of Faith to correct a logical argument
    in the same way that an intellectual argument is ineffective in correcting
    an organic moral error. They don't speak the same language. Mystical
    experience of DQ corrects the premises in a logical argument. Faith is the
    most certain, but since it pertains only to the individual's awareness it
    cannot be used to correct logic which embraces a mystical all.

    [joe] how can a mystical experience be immoral? Evolution from gravity
    produces three new forces, organic, social, intellectual. Applying the wrong
    level as the basis for my actions is immoral. The mystical experience is
    immorally acted upon if it is from the wrong level.

    [joe] 2+2=4 logic morally flows from the lower to the higher. When the 0
    (awareness) was introduced, division by 0 was ruled out. How is 0
    (awareness) outside of logic?

    [joe] Pirsig introduced DQ as a known quality. I have thought about it. Paul
    Turner suggested that DQ is known by instinct. I no longer like the word
    instinct. It has the sense of 'organ' behind it, like an eyeball. Scott
    Roberts proposed: "Now, what is DQ? The MOQ says it should be undefined, but
    it seems to me one can say a couple of things about it. One is that it is
    creativity, that it drives evolution -- it, and only it leaves new SQ
    behind. The other is that it is one, that is, there is not a DQ for the
    inorganic level, another for the biological, not one for Earth, and another
    for Mars, and so on." I conclude that DQ is experienced mystically. And then
    I go farther 'All men are created equal' in that they experience DQ, a
    mystical experience. All men experience the mystical. A baby learns and the
    mystical experience grows and develops. "Suffer the little children to come
    to me." "Out of the mouths of babes." etc.

    [joe] i was taught that Faith is a gift. I was taught that each individual
    has to be prepared in order to receive this gift. I sense in the separation
    of Church and State that Faith is a gift to my awareness. The social order
    pertains to my existence. What I am aware of is outside of my existence as O
    to 1. I create myself. My social order is confirmed, I am the son of John
    and Germaine. My order in a religious environment is contrived and wilful.
    The mystical Saint is a stumbling block to Faithful order, e.g., Joan of

    [joe] Pirsig helps me keep all this straight with Moral levels, DQ, SQ,
    Quality, Value. The growth in a child's knowledge encourages my own growth
    in knowledge. The MOQ is more useful than SOM which left verification to a
    subject/object distinction.

    [joe] and I declared to Sam that his use of logic to defend the Church in
    its rebuke of Galileo's mystical experience of gravity was wrong. Logic
    cannot defend Faith, they don't speak a common language. They are too far
    apart. If someone's Faith is misplaced, only mystical experience can speak
    to the error, like Galileo's experience of gravity. The growth of science in
    its mystical look at gravity, the DQ of the inorganic level has shown many
    dogma's to be out of this world. Unfortunately what constitute inorganic,
    organic, social, intellectual patterns in a moral level is left to: When you
    see it you'll know it. I feel there could be some effort to acknowledge the
    mystical DQ of each level as it evolves from the DQ of the inorganic level.
    Giving a Faith pattern to mystical experience is proper since it can be
    challenged by a further discipline/ experience of mystical Quality.


    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 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 20:08:47 BST