From: Chuck Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 19:06:05 GMT
Hello Chin, All Interested Peoples,
I tried to send this once before. It didn't make it through, so I reread it
and realized it was confusing as to who was saying what. I think I've fixed
that now. Here's the second try. Enjoy the day.
Chin:
On Jan 13, 2005, at 4:36 PM, Phaedrus Wolff wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your reply.
First, let me offer the thought that I am not trying to push Christianity,
just ask a simple question.
Chuck:
I didn't mean to imply that you were. If I'm understanding you correctly,
yours is a perennial vision. I, at least, find that interesting. In fact,
I think this place has been more interesting and more Dynamic in general
since your arrival.
Chin:
My question is, Is it better to tell a person they are wrong, or show them
they are wrong?
Chuck:
In all honesty, the only choice is just to do what you do. Whatever others
glean from anything, including your actions, is ultimately their own
business.
Chin:
By the time a truly intelligent kid has reached the 9th grade, they have
been told so many times "No!" emphatically "You are wrong!" without any
reasoning given other than what is in the books is the truth, and you
shouldn't question what is in the books, that they rebel against the school
system. The same may hold true for a truly intelligent kid in the
churches -- "No! What the Bible says is the word of God, and God does not
lie!"
Chuck:
By the time I was in 9th grade I had been inundated with Institutional
Catholic Dogma six days a week (except in the summertime, then it was once a
week) for eight years running with three to go. The final six or so spent
with the realization that it was all a sham and an incubating resentment at
being there against my will.
It's my belief that "God" and The Bible are most often used as tools, a
means to control the masses.
Chin:
It's kinda a Richard Pryor type statement, "Are you going to believe me? or
your lying eyes?"
Chuck:
I'm not familiar with that. Richard Pryor kills me though. He's almost as
funny as Platt.
Chin:
For the Christian to go to Iraq, and try to force their religious views on
the people of Iraq is wrong. For Pirsig or anyone else to 'Force' their
views on the culture is just as wrong.
Chuck:
I don't remember Pirsig ever threatening anyone with eternal damnation or
shouting "Quality is on our side! Right before bombing the shit out of those
unfortunate enough to live over large caches of fossil fuel."
Chin:
If Quality is the greatest force in the universe, then instead of telling
them they are wrong, you simply show them how Quality is a higher quality
way of looking at things. Quality is just as much a higher quality way over
the fairy tales of science and philsophy as it is the fairy tales of the
Bible. Quality can no more be proven to exist than God, so the Christian can
look at the MOQ as just another set of fairy tales to believe in. Who's
fairy tales you choose to believe will be in accordance to who's side you
are on -- Who has the best signs yelling "Hooray for our side!"?
Chuck:
Science is constantly questioning itself. Religion is constantly covering
its tracks. Apparently this God fellow is a being, a creator, a designer,
intelligent I'm told. Quality, I think is more of a concept. Like Reality
and Virtue.
This is the MoQ.org after all. I don't go to deadguyhangingfromatree.org
and heckle the minions.
Chin:
Is it that God, as with my thoughts on intuition, is too difficult a concept
to deal with in the MOQ? If so, then maybe it would be best to avoid trying
to change the view of the Christians, because if you are going to tell them
they are all stupid, and they believe in fairy tales, they are simply going
to turn around and tell you that it is you who believes in fairy tales.
Chuck:
As far as I'm concerned, God is just too silly a concept. We could also
discuss the monster that hides under my three-year-old daughter's bed; the
one that my dog and I have to scare off every night before she'll go to
sleep, but I never suggest it as I doubt anyone would take it quite as
seriously as the three of us do.
Chin:
You may as well try to get the Democrats and Republicans, or the Hell's
Angels and Outlaws to come together.
Chuck:
Sounds like fun.
Chin:
If you are going to bring East and West together, you are going to have to
take the highest Quality of Eastern and Western philosophy and Eastern and
Western religion and Eastern and Western politics, and let the DQ override
the SQ.
Chuck:
Or realize, in the end, there is just Q.
Chin:
If you truly believe in the concept of Quality, then Quality is in, before,
and after the social patterns as much as it is the inorganic and biological
patterns. If the intellect is to be in charge of changing the social
patterns, then it will take an intellectual psychological view as much as
scientific view to change the thinking of a people who have been cutlurally
and/or neurologically predispositioned to certain predjudices.
Chuck:
I'm not here to improve society, only myself.
Chin:
I personally feel the Hindus may have the answer. If you believe in God, you
are Hindu. If you are atheist, you are Hindu. If you have a relgion built
upon earth or cosmos or gods, you are Hindu. I could very much imagine that
if you could transport the Native American to India, their sprituality would
be accepted as a part of the Hindu way of life.
The highest Quality intellect is the one that is concerned with advancing
society; not one that holds your ego above the ego of others.
If you truly believe in Quality, when your not talking in terms of the
illusion, there is no ego, only Quality, so I respectfully disagree with
that, Chin. The highest Quality is perfection of self which is a personal
chunk of Quality for each of us.
Chuck:
I like what you say regarding the Hindus. If you're looking for a marriage
of East and West, you've found it. Quality is so hard to describe because
it's indescribable. That's the main thing. This MoQ is Westernized Zen
Buddhism. The more you say about it the less it becomes like itself the
further you get from that simple point.
To explain it to someone who doesn't get it is difficult if not impossible.
Chin:
What you think?
Chin
Chuck:
There it is. Thanks for asking.
Best regards,
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Roghair" < >
To: < >; < >
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
Hello Platt, Chin, All Interested Persons:
Platt, you magnificent bastard! "Secular Fundamentalist?" That is so
oxymoronic and such brilliant verbiage. A tip of the hat, you never
disappoint, sir.
Chin, I can tell you that upon my arrival here I was rather upset to find
God or "Cosmic Intelligence" being pushed. Reason being, I knew Pirsigian
philosophy to be non-theistic from personal study. I had a lot of anger
and
resentment toward institutionalized religion generally, and specifically
Christianity from personal experience. Also, I thought in the MoQ I'd
found
like minded folk from whom I might gain insight without having to fear
evangelical muggings. Imagine my disappointment.
On a societal scale, it's at least a little disconcerting for some to
think
that the world's only superpower, in an obviously cranky, imperialistic
mood
of late, is driven by policy influenced mainly by a God & dogma for which
a
rational argument cannot be made and for which there is no empirical
evidence.
These things in addition to many others would bother me a lot. As a
result,
I would vent frustration here. Then Sam put forth the proposition that
maybe I was "karma dumping" and suggested some reading which I accepted
and
pursued. I decided Sam was right (thank you, Sam, by the way) and gave
the
whole of it some further thought. Then something changed.
It wasn't my belief or non-belief that changed. I did; I shifted a bit.
I
realized, in the grand scheme of everything, it's all moot. Or mu,
possibly. Can't decide which--maybe both.
Eventually, Zoroastrianism, Jews for Jesus, The Mormon Church, Intelligent
Design, Gnostic Biker Talmud Puritans, Zwingliism, Christianity and other
such silliness will go the way of Zeus & Co.
Personally, I think functioning in society is challenging enough without
all
the cognitive dissonance and suspension of reason necessary to
intellectually dedicate oneself to institutionalized monotheism, but
whatever blows your hair up, ya know?
Anyway, I think of the MoQ now as containing "God" as a human construct
(I'll use "God" as a catch-phrase for "cosmic intelligence," "intelligent
designer," "voice from on high," "that voice I hear when I get high,"
etc.)
straddling the line between the societal and intellectual level. God was
born on Main street in "Any town," Societal Level, don't get me wrong,
probably in a log cabin between a glowing Christmas Tree and warm hearth
w/
Bing Crosby crooning in the background, Yule log, the whole nine
yards--all
very Norman Rockwell. He still spends the majority of his time there,
surrounded by fans and well-wishers.
In the MoQ though, he's being dragged up to the intellectual level,
reluctantly, I think.
To answer your question more directly, I think what sets off the "Secular
Fundamentalists" (ha!) so much is the perception of holy rolling
opportunism
by the evangelical antagonists who have chosen this forum as a stage
suitable for flexing their false premise muscle in support of what amounts
to little more than a collection fairy tales.
Or maybe not. What do I know anyway?
I'm off now to have "Secular Fundamentalist" printed on my business cards!
Best regards,
Chuck- Secular Fundamentalist, Radical Atheist
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Platt Holden
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:47 AM
To: ;
Subject: Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101
Hi Chin,
I know people get upset here when you speak of "Cosmic Intelligence," or
the brain and mind separately, or the idea of a master mind at the
center
of the universe is going to upset them even more.
I have to ask - What is this show of emotion all about? I've seen bikers
who hated other gangs less than Christians are hated here. To me,
Judeo-Christian, Islam, or Deity Zen is just as likely to hold the key
as
science or astrology, or Humanity Zen, Nature Zen, or Nature
spirituality
-
or mathematics. It seems the question of mathematics being the immortal
principle has not been settled.
Any mention of the supernatural drives secular fundamentalists crazy for
the simple reason that they must sever the people's relationship with God
in order to gain full control over them. So long as free people believe
that their basic moral rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness come from God and not from other men, attempts to remove those
rights by political means (coercion) will be resisted. Thus, socialist
planners must take every opportunity to disabuse people of their religious
beliefs. Fortunately, in the U.S. their efforts have hardly made a
dent.
Although Pirsig is an atheist, his "naturalistic" moral structure holds
freedom to be the highest value, thus supporting and protecting the ideals
of individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from those who
would alter them for the sake of some social level scheme promoted in the
name of "the public good."
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 -
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 : Sat Jan 15 2005 - 01:41:30 GMT