[MD] Terry Eagleton on Dawkin's God Delusion

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Case 

25 Jan. you wrote:

> [Case]
> Sorry to disappoint, Bo. But I don't take the levels all that
> seriously. I think the whole idea is more about technique than
> something fundamental. In any situation you can think of, a fairly
> oblivious set of factors will be important to analysis. Some times
> they are Pirsig's levels, Sometime Jung's archetypes. Sometimes it's
> just stimulus and response. Deciding in advance what to look for
> doesn't seem that helpful to me. But generally I find whatever you
> look at has forces that push for change and forces that want to hold
> still. That is MoQish enough for me.

You are tough case, but then I'll retreat from the level issue to the 
metaphysical where the MOQ is supposed to depart from the 
SOM. Do you recognize any SOM? That existence seems to be 
split along a subject/object - or mind/matter - divide? For instance 
that (our) thoughts are mind and thus non-existent in the 
materialist view, or - opposite - that everything is mind in the 
idealist view? I won't predict your answer, but many say that the 
is no such divide, but no sooner is this said before the two camps 
are at it again. Nurture is what determinates things! No, no, it's 
nature (genes) on and on.         

> [Case]
> Thanks for the example. About all I know about that sort of thing I
> learned from Shogun and The Last Samurai.  But on a side note don't
> you think it is odd that the philosophical Hellenists gravitated to
> Jewish ethics to create Christianity while in China the philosophical
> Taoists got balanced by Confucian ethics? Much as we would like to
> believe that rationalist ethics are desirable, their track record is
> not so good.

I'm not all sure who you regard "rationalist"? If it is the 
Confucianism/Taoism pair I remember it described by Alan Watts 
("The Way of Zen") as the former being a "breaking in" of the 
individual to form useful citizens while the latter offers freedom 
from the social straitjacket. Watts compares this favorably to the 
West where society is regarded a problem that various political 
factions constantly want to improve on, resulting in slash-and-
burn revolts with Utopia just as remote. The social level of the 
MOQ can be compared to the Confucian part while the 
intellectual corresponds to the West and Taoism to the MOQ 
"overview". 

Regarding the "track record" I willingly admit that the Far East 
has had its fair share of bloodshed, atrocities and xenophobia.  
The "pure" Buddhism of Indochina (Thailand, Burma, Vietnam 
Laos ..) seems to have a better record, but then it's not involved 
in politics directly. The Burmese junta is as brutal as juntas come. 
What's for sure is that when Islam implants itself in these cultures 
there are trouble, they always wanting to create the infamous 
"God-state".               

IMO

Bo