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

[david buchanan]

Gav said:
...mostly okay with me. little bit of anthropomorphism crept in at the end 
though. i don't think i can
comfortably call that higher implicit order - human.

dmb says:
Anthropomorphism? But I'm talking about spiritual as a human experience, not 
a non-human entity with human characteristics. I'm talking straight-up 
humanism with no Gods of any kind, anthropomorphic or not.

Gav said:
i agree that the intelligence is not separate; it is however supernatural, 
in the sense that it is both within, contains and is beyond the natural 
(sensual) world. the Tao is manifest in the life and relations of nature, 
but the Tao is also an implicit logic or intelligence that gives rise to 
nature. in which sense
it is *super*natural:  'Super' in that it is above and beyond the manifest 
natural world.

dmb says:
I don't get it. If it is beyond nature, how could we possibly know anything 
at all about it? If it is beyond nature, how is its existence anything other 
than sheer speculation?

Gav said:
the Tao is the implicate order that becomes explicate in an infinite cascade 
of quality events in manifest reality.

dmb says:
How do we know that? I mean, what reason do we have to believe that the 
order of things existed before the things were manifest? Again, how is this 
anything other than sheer speculation?

Gav said:
as far as soul goes i think it is something you *develop* (or don't develop 
if you watch too much TV).
rather than existing ab initio, a la dogmatic christianity, the soul is 
brought into existence through a process of guided self-observation (taken 
almost word for word from 'the meaning of life').

dmb says:
Monty Python's "Meaning of Life"? But seriously, what are you talking about? 
I understand what sould means in the sense of having some Elvis in your 
blood and I have seen it used to refer to a person's most deeply held sense 
of themselves, their deepest feelings. But for religious people, the soul is 
a spiritual being who is sent from heaven by God to reside in your body 
while you live on earth, and then the soul's eternal destiny is decided by 
how naughty you are in this life. Either way, Jesus or Elvis, the term 
doesn't seem to have any meaning philosophically. At best, its gotta be one 
of the vaguest terms in the English language.

Gav said:
'soul' is essentially a measure of how much you are tuned in to the Tao. 
those with soul are relaxed,
natural, rhythmic but also feel passionately.

dmb says:
I'm afraid I gotta ask you to defend and explain that part too. I mean, how 
do you figure? What sort of reasons would we have to think such a thing?

Gav said:
i wasn't fully aware of bob being wary of any theistic overtones with the 
MOQ.

dmb interupts:
Yea, in the Copleston annotations you can see Pirsig get increasingly 
irritated by the attempts to import various kinds of crypto-theological 
nonsense into old-school idealism. Plus there is plenty to go on in both 
books.

Gav continued:
...any static theistic entity is going to necessarily fall short of the 
mark, unless its 'metaphor only' status is continually reinforced. i do 
think the MOQ has much valuable common ground with eastern and western 
religious traditions; and moreover the MOQ provides us with a perspective 
from which we can better comprehend these traditions, in a true spiritual 
(non-linear logic/koan-like) sense.

dmb says:
As I see it, the world's great religions each have an esoteric core which is 
entirely compatible with the MOQ. In fact, in those same Copleston 
annotations Pirsig refers favorably to "the perennial philosophy", which 
basically what you get from looking at those esoteric cores. And I think 
that theism is at odds with this and, by definition, asserts the existence 
of a supernatural god. I mean, God is a metaphor for a mystery, not a 
metaphor for a supernatural being.

Gav said:
i guess i want to reinforce the importance of common ground here. i don't 
want to alienate anyone who has decided to use a deity as a touchstone for 
their own quality and development; everything is a metaphor anyway....it's 
just about the quality of the metaphors. there are many high quality 
religious metaphors as well as scientific ones...and if you are wary of the 
theists wait till the logical positivists hit!!

dmb says:
Well, there is real common ground among the world's religions. But again, 
this only occurs at the esoteric core. The conflict between various god 
metaphors is what's presently killing us. I mean, I don't WANT to alienate 
anyone either. Civility is a worthy cause, but I really think that its very 
important to make some distinctions. One of the big ones would be the 
distinction between dangerous and unsupportable beliefs one the one hand and 
genuine human development on the other. And I should add that we seem to be 
using the word "metaphor" in two different ways because I don't understand 
how metaphor applies to science. As I understand the term, a metaphor is a 
concrete image that represents a spiritual reality. Spiritual realities 
cannot be expressed directly because they are transrational and so it become 
necessary to refer to it indirectly, like a poet or an artist. And the 
problem of literalism arises when people attempt to understand spiritual 
realities as if they were actual, supernatural things or entities rather 
than the experiences or perspectives of human beings. I understand that 
common sense materialism DOES tend to be a kind of naive essentialism where 
"matter" is not just a persistant pattern of experiences, but is concieved 
as real, actual stuff like atoms and molecules. But I don't think this is 
the same thing as literalizing spiritual language at all. See, I agree that 
there are lots of high quality religious metaphors. The problem is not with 
the myths or the metaphors. The problem is reading them as if they were NOT 
myths and metaphors. We could even say that theists are essentialists 
insofar as they take God to be a real, actual thing. But the misreading of 
religious metaphor is an additional problem on top of that.

Like i keep saying, I expect a little more from people in this context. 
Obviously I have some kind of character flaw. I simply have no patience with 
theism in a philosophy discussion. If there is a respectable version of it, 
please feel free to educate me. I've talked to many theist in this forum and 
so far all I've seen are various descriptions about how emotionally 
satisfying it is. - And how uncomfortable it is to be challenged or 
questioned. But that's not a good way to evaluate beliefs and assertions. 
Sadly, I have to admit that this emotional appeal has the opposite effect on 
me. It seems to be a request for tolerance and compassion, but my reaction 
is one of horror and disgust.

Sorry, but that how I feel. I think theism is really, really bad stuff. I'm 
against it.

But I'm very fond of you, for whatever that's worth.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/