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

[david buchanan]

gav said to dmb:
...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.

dmb says:
Yea, as far as it goes, this is a pretty good way to describe the 
difference. But I would also point out that static quality is necessary. The 
problem with theism today is that it is too static. Its not just stable, its 
stale and obsolete. And this is where faith comes in. (And let me pause to 
point out that I'm talking about beliefs held in the absence of evidence of 
even contrary to the evidence. I'm using this ordinary definition NOT 
because it is the only possible meaning for that word, but just so that we 
are perfectly clear about what it is I'm criticizing. That's the concept I'm 
using to make distinctions with respect to the validity of beliefs.) Anyway, 
it seems to me that any belief that refuses to yeild to experience is too 
static. Or rather, the believer is too static. This goes for institutions as 
well as the people who participate in them.

Gav said:
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?

dmb replies:
Okay. I think I see what's going on here. From the point of view of 
scientific materialism, things like mysticism, magic and the occult are 
considered to be supernatural because they don't fit into that conceptual 
framework. And so these things have been severely marginalized. They're put 
in a category with wizards, witches and Godfrey, the sickly, unemployed, 
amatuer children's magician. This is part and parcel of the "blind spot" the 
West has toward mysticism or anything that can't be explained in material 
terms. And I suppose some of it, lots of it, really is just superstitious 
nonsense. But I think there is also a huge area that has been filtered out 
of our mythos. Anyway, I think the MOQ's expanded empiricism is designed to 
include this area of experience. And I think the idea is that mystical 
experience is discounted in our culture because of those SOM assumptions and 
because of our theologies, but that it should not be discounted. I also 
think that Pirisg is saying this experience is perfectly natural, that we 
don't have to resort to anything supernatural. Even enlightenment is 
perfectly natural. In the context of the MOQ, which entails the rejection 
SOM's assumptions, saying that its natural doesn't necessarily mean that it 
has a basis in physical reality or that it is known through the sense 
organs.

Gav said:
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.

dmb says:
Hmmm. Not sure I know what you mean here. Probably because I don't know 
anything about Bohm's work. But to reiterate the same idea as above in these 
terms, I think the MOQ allows for realities that transcend the inorganic and 
biological levels of quality in the sense they they go beyond those two 
"physical" levels, but those realities are not outside of our reality nor 
outside of our experience. I mean, social staic quality and intellectual 
static quality and Dynamic Quality all transcend physical reality without 
being supernatural.

Gav said:
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'.

dmb says:
Hmm. I guess I don't know what you mean by "heaven" or "unmanifest reality". 
See, I think the word  "eternity" is one of those metaphors that very oftern 
get misinterpreted. I think that in a religious context, that word is 
supposed to point to an aspect of the mystical experience wherein the 
distinction between the past and the future becomes meaningless, like lots 
of other common sense concepts inherited from the mythos. The word infinity 
is the same way. From the standpoint of conventional reality, the only thing 
we can rightly call infinite is the universe itself, and even then we should 
say its virtually or practially infinite. But, again, I think this word is 
supposed to refer to an aspect of a mystical experience where the 
distinction between percieved and perciever becomes meaningless. To put it 
crudely, being at One with the universe means there are no borders between 
things, they no longer finite, no longer have definate edges, no independent 
existence. That's infinity. That's eternity. In this way we can, 
paradoxically, experience eternity in this moment and we know infinity in 
this place. Again, this is not percieved with the eyes of flesh, but it is 
natural.

Gav said:
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?

dmb says:
Well, first of all I wouldn't say that the bible is FULL of radical Zen 
wisdom. We can detect a few traces here and there, but the blind spot I 
mentioned at the top goes back far enough that the most mystical books were 
not included. The entire history of the Christian church is affected by 
this. As I understand it, Orthodox Christianity leans toward mysticism more 
than any other flavor, but it still doesn't compare favorably to Zen. And 
like I said at the top, some amount of static quality is going to be 
necessary for anything of value to last, to persist. The problem is when the 
static quality takes over and no longer points us toward transformative 
experiences but rather keeps our eyes on the static references instead. 
Sorry to drag out the old cliche, but the static forms are supposed to be a 
finger pointing to the moon. Theism worships the finger and denies the 
existence of the moon.

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

dmb says:
Yea, that's why I'm angry. I had always heard that molestor-preists weren't 
very picky, which is why I'm so hurt that they never picked me. I've always 
felt unattrative and I blame the catholic church for that. I suspect they're 
also to blame for the fact that I can't dance worth a damn. Unless I'm 
drunk. Then I feel pretty and dance like Carmen Elecktra. No, let's say I 
dance like Madonna, just to get back at those priests.

Gav said:
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'.

dmb replies:
If I thought theism and materialism were my only choices, I pick... up a gun 
and shoot myself in the head. Apparently you are not the only one who has 
the impression that I am condemning all religion, but actually I'm just 
explaining some distinctions that are supposed to help in sorting out the 
difference between good and bad concepts within religion. I don't mean that 
I will single handedly reform the Vatican or anything like that, of course. 
But I am trying to explain how it is that the MOQ can support mysticism and 
be anti-theistic at the same time. I'm trying to explain that mysticism and 
atheism both fit coherently in Pirsig's system. And like I said, the 
esoteric core of all the great religions in the world can also fit 
coherently in this same picture. This is the beauty of it. No one is 
excluded, no particular religion is better than the others in this sense, 
because this is where they all agree with each other. The thing that the MOQ 
can and does rightly exclude, are unsupported beliefs, faith-based beliefs. 
See, the thing is we just gotta have a religion that does not ask us to 
check our brains at the door or suspend disbelief indefinately. We gotta 
have a world view in which science and religion only support and illuminate 
one another. We need a coherent vision that agrees with experience and which 
makes no claims about that which is outside of experience. In the MOQ, 
experience is reality.

dmb

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