> RICK
> > where I come from the defining characteristic of a "religious" view is
> > that it must be taken completely on faith... that is, the exact opposite
of
> > being "absolutely sure".
> 3WD
> Living in the middle of the American "Bible Belt" I have found that the
dominant "religious" view
> here is that if one is willing to accept, on faith, their view, then you
will be asSURED, absolutely
> assured, (as regularly as you are ministered to) that your reality now and
forever will be as that
> "particular dogma" describes it. Irreguardless of your actual experience.
RICK:
Point taken... but (1) I think the idea of being "sure" about something
you've taken on "faith" is a contradiction. And (2) being "sure" and being
"assured" are not the same, you've equivocated.
> RICK
> > Social patterns are always more moral than Biological ones
> 3WD
> This is a common misinterpretation of the MoQ. Show me where Pirsig uses
terms like "always" or
> "never" in the context of establishing this moral order. For every quote
you find that seems to
> suggest that, I will show you one that qualifies it with conditions and
cautions where this
> "absolute" interpretation can be shown to be not so.
>
RICK:
(The MoQ has no absolutes? That sounds pretty absolute to me.)
There is no misinterpretation here, at worst I'm guilty of over
oversimplfying for the sake of making a point. But you have completely
missed that point... in fact, your "correction" of my "misinterpretation"
only makes my grievance stronger. If EVERY rule of the MoQ is cautioned ,
conditioned and Qualified (as you say, and which may be true) then not only
can we never be sure if we're putting patterns into the "correct" levels,
but now we can never be sure if our application of the rules themselves is
anything more than emotive. After all, if their isn't at least one ABSOLUTE
anywhere in the system, then the system is enitrely RELATIVE.
3WD:
> I mentioned Ken Wilbur's "A Brief History of Everything" above. I would
suggest that if you have
> not read it to do so as it has helped me understand the MoQ particularly
in levels and their
> relationships much better.
RICK:
I've never read any Wilbur. But I have seen his work and relation to the
MoQ discussed in this forum at length... so far I haven't seen anything that
has thrilled me significantly, but who knows... I will order a copy of the
aforemention book immediately.
It's all Valuable,
Rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST