From: Leland Jory (ljory@mts.net)
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 13:52:06 GMT
On Mar 24, 2004, at 4:05 PM, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> You asked Platt 19 Feb 2004 00:46:40 -0500:
> 'in your "opinion" which is the best religion?? Which represents the
> epitome
> of human civilisation?'
>
> You now (23 Mar 2004 07:34:56 -0500) ask (quoting Pirsig):
> 'Need we anyone to tell us what is good, and what is not good? (best)'
>
> No, you needn't have asked, but you did and Pirsig pretended that the
> MoQ
> could give an aswer. If quality were really so self-evident, we would
> need
> neither morals, nor inquiries into values (like 'Zen ...'), nor
> inquiries
> into morals (like 'Lila ...') and our whole discussion of the MoQ
> would be
> pointless.
Wim, I think there is a basic misunderstanding of what the MoQ is,
here. Morals are not something we need IN PLACE OF Quality. They ARE
Quality, or rather they are static patterns of value which evolved in
direct response to Dynamic Quality. The reason ZAMM and Lila were
necessary is that our traditional SOM view of the universe (which is
not evil in itself, because it, too, developed in direct response to
DQ) is proving insufficient to completely explain the universe. It
works on many basic levels, but fails on some more esoteric concepts.
It is similar to Newtonian physics compared to Einsteinian physics.
Both explain the way the physical universe works, up to a point.
Einstein's physics simply go further than Newton's. This is not to say
that Newton was wrong, since Newtonian physics is still used in many
cases, since the math involved is far simpler. By the same token, SOM
is still a valuable way to look at the universe AS LONG AS YOU REMEMBER
that it is insufficient to deal with many of the more esoteric
questions of philosophy.
> Will you participate in testing the MoQ on religion? Alternatively ...
> if
> you don't need anyone to tell you which is the best religion, you
> surely can
> tell us...
I don't think it is possible to test the MOQ against religion, since
the MOQ is not a religion (though it sounds like some here are trying
to build a religion around it). Religion, IMO, is simply a complex
combination of static (mainly) q-social and (partly) q-intellectual
patterns. Where most religions seem to go wrong is, they stop
responding to DQ. The patterns become more and more static, until they
begin hampering the individual's ability to respond to DQ. The MOQ
cannot be compared to religion, since it is OUTSIDE of religion. Also,
IMO no religion can be said to be "best", since almost every one of
them has apparently lost its connection to DQ.
--
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 : Thu Mar 25 2004 - 14:02:58 GMT