[MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience, and Religion (SQ) as Power

[david buchanan]

Stephen, Arlo and y'all:

Arlo said to Stephen:
I think the whole point of the lyrics was that Mystic/DQ experience is 
personal, and as it is relagated to static patterns it is often used to 
perpetuate its own power, rather than "lead the flock to enlightenment".

dmb says:
The power and authority of the church wouldn't concern me if it were 
legitimate and well-earned. But as a Campbellian, I believe that the whole 
sin, salvation, heaven complex is profoundly misleading, that it actually 
stops seekers, hinders the road to enlightenment. I don't think the leaders 
are insincere or cynically motivated by power, I just think they are 
incorrect. I also think that, in the context of this forum, its appropriate 
to discuss these issues. As every Pirsig reader can see, this forum is 
focused on an author who has pleanty to say on the topic....

Arlo quoted from ZAMM:
>"If it was truly a new route over the mountain it’s certainly a needed one. 
>For
>more than three centuries now the old routes common in this hemisphere have
>been undercut and almost washed out by the natural erosion and change of 
>the
>shape of the mountain wrought by scientific truth. The early climbers
>established paths that were on firm ground with an accessibility that 
>appealed
>to all, but today the Western routes are all but closed because of dogmatic
>inflexibility in the face of change. To doubt the literal meaning of the 
>words
>of Jesus or Moses incurs hostility from most people, but it’s just a fact 
>that
>if Jesus or Moses were to appear today, unidentified, with the same message 
>he
>spoke many years ago, his mental stability would be challenged. This isn’t
>because what Jesus or Moses said was untrue or because modern society is in
>error but simply because the route they chose to reveal to others has lost
>relevance and comprehensibility. "Heaven above" fades from meaning when
>space-age consciousness asks, Where is "above"? But the fact that the old
>routes have tended, because of language rigidity, to lose their everyday
>meaning and become almost closed doesn’t mean that the mountain is no 
>longer
>there. It’s there and will be there as long as consciousness exists." 
>(Pirsig,
>ZMM).

dmb says:
This same idea is also expressed in LILA, where this is described in terms 
of static pictures of DQ are mistaken for the real thing. Static portraits 
grow like vines and eventually block the light. And the idea of original sin 
is dialed way back so that one's eternal fate no longer depends on our 
ability to refrain from vice. In the MOQ "sin" is simply a matter of putting 
biological quality over the more evolved forms of morality. Its not some 
ultimate test of the human soul. This idea of origianl sin and our need to 
obtain salvation is, I think, what the lyric writer was referring to in that 
line about being a sin to be alive. I mean, this is a pretty central 
doctrine in all the denominations and I happen to believe that this idea is 
emotionally abusive and just plain wrong. This nonsense turns us into 
obedient children where we need creative adults. Sorry, but I don't think we 
are required to respect people's beliefs just because they believe it. I 
think it matters what people believe. I think its perfectly legitimate to 
ask for reasons and justifications in a forum like this.

Ken Wilber expresses this same idea with a map analogy. He points out that 
the early maps of the New World were pretty bad, that Florida was drawn so 
as to be three times the size of Texas and the western part of North America 
was a featurless area called terra incognito. But that certainly doesn't 
mean there is no such thing as North America. That doesn't mean there is no 
territory to be mapped. And the ZAMM quote is so much like Campbell's 
thinking that you could have fooled me with it.

Arlo said:
It is in the "statification" of these mystic experiences that the "church" 
becomes more important than the "message". One spends more time worshipping 
"Jesus" than actually doing what he suggests. Many in history have divided 
the "flock" of these religions into those who seek exoteric understanding 
(the literal word on the page), and those who seek esoteric understanding 
(the metaphorical message of the words). What side you camp on in your own 
business, but the dangers of an all exoteric approach is fairly evident by 
simply viewing the actions of "believers" in the name of their respective 
"God".

dmb says:
Right, and beyond the exoteric/esoteric readings there is the problem of 
clinging to the exoteric message in the space age. To maintain literal 
beliefs in things like heaven above, virgin births, ressurections and the 
like basically requires that we deny scientific truth. Taken literally, 
these beliefs are at odds with medical science, astronomy and just about 
everything we know about virgins, death. This is the natural erosion Pirsig 
refers to above. Today, there is simply no honest way to believe in these 
teachings without taking an anti-intellectual, anti-scientific position. And 
that's exactly what I see in these attempts to portray science as just 
another kind of "faith".

Arlo said:
And, by the way, the lyrics have nothing to do with "science" as being the 
only path. I'm not even sure where you got that from. They say nothing 
except bowing to love and beauty is Good, while bowing to "a god in the 
image of man" (a social power structure) is not. I believe this. You find 
value in bowing to such a structure. Sobeit.

dmb says:
Yea, I don't know where this "science is the only path" thing comes from 
either. This is just one of many wild distortions and inventions being 
thrown around by angry theists. The posts from Ian, Case and Stephen in the 
"Faith" thread will describe my position as extreme, dogmatic, intolerant, 
bigoted, Positivistic, absolutist and genocidal. But all I'm saying is that 
the MOQ and science are not faith-based. I think these wild exaggerations 
are intellectually weak and dishonest. Its just the classic evasion tactic 
and it always backfires. This tactic only makes its users look rather 
paranoid and delusional, as if they were under attack by straw men they've 
created.

And why in the world would it be out of bounds to complain about the attempt 
to make theism fit into an anti-theistic system? Its not like the MOQers are 
going around preaching philosophical mysticism in the churches. Its not like 
MOQ.org has put up a big sign saying, "Hey Christians, do we have a 
metaphysics for you! Come on in! You'll love it here." Aren't we supposed to 
be having something like a philosophical discussion here? Aren't 
philosophical debates about beliefs and their justifications just standard, 
classic stuff? Aren't we supposed to question traditional beliefs here?

Being a theist in the regular world is one thing. As we Americans all know, 
the vast majority are Christian. And there are literally a million places 
you can go to practice the faith or share your beliefs. In America its not 
very hard to get through life without having your faith directly challenged 
or questoned or scrutinized. But this is one of the few places where such a 
thing is appropriate and normal. Given the context, nobody should be 
surprized by criticisms of theism or faith. Its even kinda hard to be 
sympathic with those who are now apparently offended and upset by this 
criticism. In this context, taking offence is really quite preposterous. 
(Which means "bass-ackwards" in Latin.)

See, I've been operating on the assumption that people interested in this 
forum are, for the most part, a self-selected group of 
philosophically-minded persons. The only like a requirement here is that we 
have read the works under discussion, which is where Arlo and I are getting 
most of Pirsig's comments on the topic. So I would have hoped that posters 
here, even if they were offended and ranted a bit, would eventually ask, 
"Well now, what do you mean? In what sense is the MOQ atheistic or an 
anti-theist system? What the difference between theism and the mysticism of 
the MOQ? Case started to head in this direction, but apparently did not 
really want to discuss it and quickly reverted to name-calling and such.

I'd rather have a real conversation about it. Really. Anyone can see how a 
traditional Christian could be offended by the suggestion that she believes 
in things that aren't true. Yea, that's gonna hurt. But what if that really 
is the case? What if lots people have faith in a bunch of misunderstandings 
about obsolete symbols? What if the perpetuation of that belief system is 
the very thing that cuts us off from the "spiritual" reality those symbols 
are meant to represent? That's what Jung, Watts, Campbell, Wilber and many 
others say. I think that's what Pirsig is saying in his complaints about 
"low grade yelping" and the "clap trap" and all that. And I've been making a 
case for empiricism on this issue too.

I wish the self-described Christians amongst us would take a serious look at 
this instead of freaking out about it. I wish the theists amongst would make 
a sincere effort to grapple with the Pirsig quotes and otherwise engage the 
argument on its merits.

Thanks.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/