[MD] The MoQ.org STRANGLES Creativity

[Stephen Hannon]

On 6/27/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> [dmb]
> As I understand it, the MOQ says we gotta get rid of the theism. That's the
> bathwater. This is where the family values crowd goes wrong. We gotta get
> rid of the idea that marriage and all the other sexual moral codes are
> sanctioned by God and replace it with the idea that they serve an
> evolutionary purpose, that they serve life, not God. That's the baby. When
> that distinction and we've dusted off and re-examined these codes in the
> light of a broader evolutionary scheme, then we stand a better chance of
> treating violations with some sense of perspective and proportion. And when
> we see that all human being are also animals with animal appitites, when we
> see that nobody with a body is immune, forgiveness doesn't really enter the
> equation so much as sympathy, eh? yea, people like to have sex, but that's
> certainly no big surprize.
>
> [Case]
> It is hopelessly naïve of the MoQ to think that theism is going any where.
> The best it can be hoped for is to pull the plug, change the water and
> perhaps adding a bit of fragrance to the soap. If evolutionary interests are
> served, isn't "reason" just a cloud of soap bubbles? From a personal
> perspective I have long sided with Elliot, "The last temptation is the
> greatest treason. To do the right thing, for the wrong reason." But on a
> social level I am no longer so sure. During that course of my life I have
> seen nothing but backsliding.
>
> Americans have never been big on reason and even so great and exemplar of
> the rational political animal as Robert McNamara, in the documentary 'The
> Fog of War" concludes that Rationalism will not say us. Christians are if
> nothing else capable of being shamed and the "theologians" of the right are
> shameful lot. Their very view of the Bible is nothing short of blasphemy.
> The Reformation concept of "sola scriptura" has been warped by them into the
> notion of inerrancy. This is a view so obscenely silly that only the threat
> of eternal damnation could make anyone consider it for more than a second.
> How republicans and capitalists can co-opt the ideas of Jesus is nothing
> short of intellectual alchemy. The man never wasted on opportunity to
> lambaste the wealthy and powerful. His disciples are portrayed in Acts were
> aggressively communist.
>
> The fault here is not with the average lunch bucket in the pew so much as
> with a clergy that is either aggressively ignorant or out right fraudulent.
> Christianity has survived 2000 because it is plastic enough to met the
> spiritual needs of Greek and African slaves, Roman emperors, European Kings
> and Peruvian Indians. It survived the middle ages and the enlightenment. It
> will survive modernity and postmodernity (which sounds futuristic to me).
>
> It is after all a social organism. I suspect it can easily resurrect itself
> from large piles of lion poop; easily outstripping SCARF's ability to
> procure federal grants.
>
> Arlo said:
> The "freedom" versus "order" battle is fought on all MOQ levels, as DQ and
> SQ seek harmony. Static intellectual patterns can be as restrictive of
> "freedom" on the intellectual level, as static social patterns can be on the
>
> social level.
>
> dmb says:
> Exactly. When freedom and order are seen in terms of the Dynamic/Static
> split then they have an entirely different relationship. I mean, the common
> sense idea that freedom means freedom FROM the social order goes right out
> the window. Not that Pirsig is advocating conformity of course. But the
> DQ/sq split truns the relationship from freedom VERSUS order to a
> relationship where freedom DEPENDS on order.
>
> [Case]
> I think this focus on the interaction of SQ and DQ at any level is far more
> useful than all the talk about how one level is better than another.
>
>
> [dmb]
> In this view evolution is not a definance of the existing order so much as
> an expansion or additon to it.
> For example, the way the MOQ asks us to dust off the social level codes. And
>
> just as the human animal had to give up certain things when society came
> along, things like theft, rape and murder, so we have to give up certain
> social level things now that intellect has come along. I mean, things like
> racism, sexism, and all that chosen people kind of stuff is the vestiage of
> our evolutionary history. But shedding some obsolete features is not the
> same as trashing or defying the point and purpose of these lower codes. Its
> just part of the taming, guiding process. Or so it seems to me.
>
> [Case]
> Evolution is a response to change. Change is with us always. If the MoQ is
> seen as balance between SQ and DQ then it too is all about the maintaining
> harmony in the face of constant change.
>
> I am not sure I see your meaning about rape theft and murder being the norm
> before the intellect came along, though. As social creatures I believe those
> evils were moderated socially long before intellect came along. As for race
> and sex isms those really only began to seem even a little odd in the last
> half of the last millennium. Frankly we have handled them pretty well
> considering. From an MoQ point of view they interest me because of the rate
> at which a need for change was demanded and implemented. It is the rate of
> change overall that is the most significant challenge for the future.
>
>
>
> 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/
>

[dmb]
As I understand it, the MOQ says we gotta get rid of the theism.

[Steve H]
Pirsig, page 310 ZMM, talking about gumption:
"I like it also because it describes exactly what happens to someone
who connects with Quality.  He gets filled with gumption.  The Greeks
called it "enthousiasmos, the root of "enthusiasm," which means
literally "filled with theos," or God, or Quality.  See how that
fits?"

page 262 ZMM:
"In the area of Religion, the rational relationship of Quality to the
Godhead needs to be more thoroughly established, and this I hope to do
much later on.  For the time being one can meditate on the fact that
the old English roots for the Buddha and Quality, God and good, appear
to be identical."

I don't think it is Pirsig's goal to be hostile toward religion.
Certainly it contributes some kind of Positive Social Quality if it
successfully creates a sense of community.  The problem in this
country is that consumerism has such a hold on this country that it
has nearly destroyed our sense of community.  For example, from page
366 of ZMM:

"It's the primary America we're in.  It hit the night before last in
Prineville Junction and it's been with us ever since.  There's this
primary America of freeways and jet flights and TV and movie
spectaculars.  And people caught up in this primary America seem to go
through huge portions of their lives without much consciousness of
what's immediately around them.  The media have convinced them that
what's right around them is unimportant.  And that's why they're
lonely.  You see it in their faces.  First the little flicker of
searching, and then when they look at you, you're just kind of an
object.  You don't count.  You're not what they're looking for.
You're not on TV."

If church leaders actually addressed the problem of declining sense of
community, religion would actually be beneficial.  Instead, we have
people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who serve their own ego
and their party instead of the church.

Regards,

Steve H