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

[Stephen Hannon]

[dmb]
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.

[Steve H]
I would beg to differ.  I would say economics is at the core of most
of the conflicts in the world right now.  US: In Iraq for oil.
Lebanon: Desperately poor country next door to richer Israel.
Darfur/Sudan:  One of the poorest region in Africa.  Religion is only
a partial aspect of these wars.

[dmb]
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.

[Steve H]
Let me reprint the lyrics again.

Down with Moses and his Ten Commandments
Deader than deadest of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Back to the desert with Jesus and Mohammed

I don't mind if theism is questioned, challenged, debated, but to me
that sounded more like an attack or a call to arms.

Also, I have said that religion is part of the mythos of most
societies.  Pirsig explained in ZMM that the mythos directly
influences the logos.  You can't really ignore theism without denying
a significant part of our mythos.  Do you think it is possible for
societies to exist without a mythos?  Or is theism simply a negative
part of our mythos?

Regards,
Steve H

On 8/7/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>