[MD] Case's Answer to Marsha

[Case]

[dmb]
First of all, God's answer to Job was just plain rude. God's answer was
cruel and arrogant. 

[Case]
I think God used a more delicate phraseology.

[dmb]
And, having just read Freud's "The Future of an Illusion" for school, I
would object to the whole premise. As he has it, religion is the cultural
equivalent of the infantile wish for a parent figure who will protect us and
tell us what to do, a figure we both fear and need. 

[Case]
Odd that you would mention Freud since as David pointed out I thought the
allusion to Jung was clear. Jung may even had mentioned synchronicity in his
Answer to Job but it has been years since I read either and was too lazy to
look it up.

[dmb]
God was invented to protect us from these uncontrolable forces. 

[Case]
For future reference there is a subtext to every post I make here and that
is that uncertainty is THE fundamental issue. Everything we do and
everything we are evolved to do is a function of our relationship to the
unknown.

[dmb]
But the fact that bad things happen to virtuous people only seems odd when
we suppose there is a reason they should be immune to calamity, disease and
disaster. It only seems objectionable when you suppose that some kind of
cosmic justice exists in the first place. The problem of evil is only a
problem insofar as we can imagine its absence as the way things are supposed
to be.

[Case]
What is karma but a form of justice. My use of the story of Job served
several purposes. One I like the story. Two it illustrates an issue common
to all religious traditions. Three I figured it would annoy you.

[dmb]
The idea in Chinese divination techniques, that the general flow of reality 
will manifest itself on every level, is the same notion behind Jung's 
syncronicity. As I understand it, he explained that these acausal meaningful

coincidences revealed an underlying unity. We find these events so striking 
because of the way they defy our notions about how separate things are 
related by cause and effect. The coincidence reveals a connection that is 
something else. Like other marginalized "occult" beliefs, this is one of 
those little cases where we can pull back the curtain. SOM is the man behind

the curtain in this case, of course.

[Case]
I do really see what SOM has to do with it but I mentioned Jung's idea and
why I don't think he carried it far enough.

A Definate Case said:
Several times I have pointed out my objections to Pirsig's use of the term 
Quality to name the Tao. The term Quality serves his purpose in his 
discussion of Value but by giving it a name we know he creates the illusion 
that we know it...

dmb replies:
Maybe I missed it last time or just forgot. In any case, I think Pirsig 
likes the term because he wants to say that we do know it. Its not an 
abstraction or a thing you have to believe in or understand, but something 
you already know directly. As in the case of "Blink", the idea is that 
Quality is the first thing you know. Its what you know even before you can
conceptualize that knowledge. 

[Case]
Pirsig was pretty clear about why he used the terms he did, at least in ZMM
and I was cool with it for years until I came here and saw what muddled
thinking they had led too. 

I hope I have made it clear by now that I am not a theist but neither do I
fear the Bible. I have a decided preference for the KJV precisely for the
reason most people don't like it. The old style of the wording make it clear
that you are not reading a modern book. The fact that it sounds alien
reminds you that it is alien. The same principle applies to the Tao.

[dmb]
Despite my butting in here, I don't know what Marsha's question was. Judging

from the answer, Marsha asked why shit happens. Somehow, I don't think she'd

ask that. I don't mean to be glib or dismissive here but it seems to me that

question is a bit crazy. I mean, why the hell not? Why should we expect an 
absence of shit? Of course shit happens. The rain doesn't care who gets wet.

That's what Jesus and the weather man says.

[Case]
Marsha had encouraged continued discussion of the Tao as it relates to the
MoQ in the "psst, Squonk over here" thread. I said earlier in the week I did
not have time for that because when talking to Mark I had to untie the other
half of my brain from behind my back but that I would try something on the
weekend. I was just following through on that.

[David]
You're such an unconvincing atheist because the subject so bothers you -as
it should not.

[Case]
I think what David means is a point I have made several times before. Your
shear irritation over the matter and your clear lack of understanding of it
makes whatever you have to say about it irrelevant. 

As for what the MoQ says, feel free to state your own opinion but the MoQ
does not have an opinion. Pirsig personifies the MoQ in much the same way
Richard Brautigan personified Trout Fishing in America in the novel by the
same name. When Brautigan did it, it was kind of funny. When Pirsig does it
it is just a little weird.