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

[david buchanan]

You've posed some good questions here, Gav, and I plan to answer them. I owe 
Arlo and Case too.

Later,
dmb

P.S. Bill Hicks was a genius, Ant, and I'm glad to learn that death hasn't 
harmed his career.


>From: gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience,and Religion (SQ) 
>as Power
>Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:33:07 +1000 (EST)
>
>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
>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/

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963