[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Chris, Platt --

[Platt asks Christoffer, after a long discussion]:
> Can you tell us why you are not a Marxist?

[Chris]:
> A Communist society is not realistic in today's world
> I think, and maybe it never will, so for now I think
> the best thing is to balance up society - a concept lost
> to America it seems.
> Lagom is a word everybody should learn.

I don't know what Chris's beef with America is but, from Wikipedia's 
article, I gather that "lagom" is a Swedish word for "sufficient" or "just 
enough"--which suggests accommodating to an equitable balance.  As a 
societal term, I suppose it approximates what the liberals have been 
promoting as "egalitarianism" or "political correctness".

At the risk of inviting acrimony, I would like to submit a more familiar 
word with more specificity in this context -- Freedom.  It's a word rarely 
found in this forum or in Pirsig's writings, yet it would appear to be at 
the crux of this prolonged debate.  Compared to a democratic republic, how 
much freedom is enjoyed in feudal society, in a commune, a monarchy, a 
dictatorship, a socialist state, a military junta?

May I suggest that the innate "spirituality" of mankind is stifled in any 
social system which does not acknowledge and foster individual freedom.  The 
attack on Christianity as a "socialist system" is unfounded.  Whatever you 
say about Jesus, he was neither a dogmatist nor a communist.  His precept 
"Give into Caesar that which is Caesar's" and throwing the barters out of 
the temple are acts clearly endorsing separation of Church and State.  His 
plucking of corn on the Sabbath and healing of prostitutes are radical 
departures from Jewish law and religious dogma.

Few historians would contest the fact that the establishment of a 
representative democracy, classic liberalism, capitalism, and a free-market 
economy (all in revolt against tyranny) are fundamentally rooted in the 
humanist ethics of Christian teachings, especially with respect to the 
sanctity and exercise of human freedom.  Moreover, the first amendment which 
states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a guarantee that U.S. 
citizens will be free to express their spirituality.

Where is this concept fostered, or even acknowledged, in the MoQ?  Indeed, 
individual freedom is notable by its absence here.  Perusing recent 
postings, the only appearance of the word "free" I was able to find was this 
castigation of Platt by Chris:
> This Red-Fear thing that Platt showed obvious signs of
> scared me somewhat, because it is so FREE of reason and
> critical analysis.

I submit that Pirsig's failure to acknowledge and define the Individual has 
made Freedom a "bogus" word to MoQists.  After all, if the universe is 
inherently moral, how could it ever support a free agent?  The individual 
self is denied existence; it is the myth of an obsolete and unenlightened 
notion called SOM, and it must be eliminated so that the universe can move 
on to "betterness".

Gentlemen, you can wrangle over the pros and cons of leftist liberalism, 
communism, fascism, statism, and conservatism 'til the cows come home.  But 
the exercise of individual freedom is what this dispute is really about.

Regards,
Ham