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

[gav]

wow.............
cheers for the prompt reply dave, and the warm ending.
okay the problem is with theism (call me sherlock)....

Dave: 
>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.

i think this is the kernel of the disagreement. you
both welcome and deny the utility of religious
traditions. you split religions into a theistic
component and a non-theistic component. this is  a
static/dynamic split: static theistic dogmatic
religion vs dynamic revelatory experiential knowledge.

okay i will come back to that.

the word 'supernatural' is also key i think;  synonyms
for supernatural in my dictionary are *mystical* 
magical or occult. well the MOQ is explicitly mystical
but not supernatural? are we relying on private
definitions here to our mutual disadvantage?

DQ is a process which only tangentially interacts with
manifest reality. manifest reality (ie *nature*) is
produced from 'moments of DQ'; statically latched
quality events if you like. DQ, like Bohm's implicate
order, and usual defs of 'God', is both immanent and
transcendent. that is it is BOTH nature and outside
of, beyond, nature. supernatural.

 but that is my take and it is always speculation. i
just think this speculation seems consistent to me. it
seems to fit.... i can't deny the transcendent nature
of DQ. there is earth and there is heaven; there is
manifest reality and unmanifest reality. i am
attributing the word 'nature' to manifest reality; are
you saying it applies to both realms: heaven and
earth? the manifest and unmanifest? space-time and the
eternal/infinite? if so i get your point and your
aversion to 'supernatural'.

okay back to the top: can we really cut the static
from the dynamic in any religious tradition; and are
they not complementary to some extent. i mean if the
bible (pretty conservative territory here) is full of
radical zen wisdom....where do we start? 

you seem very touchy about religion mate. were you
molested by catholic priests or something? they
wouldn't touch me the picky bastards.

seriously though if people get some quality and
happiness and perhaps even spritual knowledge out of
religion then is it all a bad thing? it is those who
seem bound to nihilism and materialism that scare me,
not those trying to believe in something bigger than
themselves. i think i have found more closed minds in
the supposed educated classes than in the 'naive
masses'.

> 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com