From: Leland Jory (ljory@mts.net)
Date: Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:38:29 GMT
On Mar 18, 2004, at 6:28 PM, Steve Peterson wrote:
> I see being understood when I want to communicate as my problem.
I find that I do occasionally have to explain what I mean when I say
'god' to someone. This is not something I mind doing.
>
>> I am more than happy to expound on my concept of 'god' to them, they
>> choose to ignore it. To paraphrase Pirsig, the truth knocks on the
>> door and they say "Go away, I HAVE the truth." And so it goes away.
>
> It sounds like you feel that you know that truth about what the word
> 'god' means while you also say that others who have a different
> concept of what 'god' means feel that they have the truth as well. I
> don't know how to decide who has the correct definition of 'god.' Can
> you help me?
No, I don't think that at all. I suppose my point is, no one has a
"correct" definition of 'god', since 'god' is a transcendental concept
any attempt to define it will fall short of the mark. Same goes for
Quality. I was paraphrasing to make a point.
>>> Equating God with DQ is problematic for still other reasons even in
>>> our discussion group. The concept of God generally includes the idea
>>> of an intelligent being who purposefully makes decisions while
>>> Pirsig resists such anthropomorhization and hypostatizing in his
>>> concept of DQ.
>>
>> Again, this is because of the intellectual loading of the word 'god'
>> that theologists have done. When you disregard this loading of the
>> word, you see that it can simply be a term for the transcendent.
>
> Sure, it could be used that way, but few people do. I don't think you
> can distinguish between what a word means and how it is used. As I
> recall English dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Dictionary definitions are modified regularly. Words commonly change or
expand their meanings as time goes by. Language is a convention and,
being conventional, simply requires the agreement of all parties
involved.
>> The reason god was anthropomorphized in the first place is because
>> humans generally have a problem conceptualizing abstracts. The
>> heavier the abstract idea is, the tougher time we have wrapping our
>> heads around it. So, we coin language to describe it. The problems
>> arise when people treat the language as the thing being described.
>>
>
> It sounds like you are doing just that when you say "god was
> anthropomorphized." You mean there was a concept called god that was
> later altered to reflect humanity? When was the word 'god' ruined?
Let me rephrase, the reason the transcendent creative flux was
anthropomorphized..." Does that clarify things?
> I would agree with relating (rather than equating) DQ and God as both
> are concepts with referents that are by definition beyond conception;
> however, their use is different enough that I can only imagine
> misunderstanding if you try to use them interchangeably.
>
> But I do think you can keep both words. Because DQ is not
> anthropomorphic it is a better basis for philosophy, but it doesn't
> make for as good poetry as God.
The only reason god is anthropomorphic is that people continue using
the word in the "Sentient All-Father" sense. The fact is, god CAN be
used interchangeably with DQ, just like tao can. That being said, I
don't often actually use 'god' to describe DQ (I only use the term when
the situation requires it).
> Walter Kauffman in his introduction to philosopher Martin Buber’s “I
> and Thou” makes the case for using the word “God”:
> “If one no longer has use for the word “God”… ...why use religious
> terms? Indeed it might be better not to use them because they are
> always misunderstood. But what other terms are there? We need a new
> language, and new poets to create it, and new ears to listen to it.
> Meanwhile, if we shut our ears to the old prophets who still speak
> more or less in the old tongues, using ancient words, occasionally in
> new ways, we shall have very little music. We are not so rich that we
> can do without tradition. Let him that has new ears listen to it in a
> new way.”
>
> I agree with Kauffman that it is worth trying to work with the word
> 'god' from an artistic point of view, but as an intellectual pattern
> it is of lower quality than DQ.
The way I use it, it is not an intellectual pattern, it IS DQ. You're
stuck on the traditional SOM definition of 'god'. However, I will try
to minimize my use of 'god' on this list (since we all know what DQ is
anyways). I find 'god' a useful term in situations where DQ is an alien
idea, to bridge the understanding gap. No need for that here.
--
Leland Jory :^{)>
Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher
"It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go
away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." -
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
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 : Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:41:51 GMT