[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[MarshaV]

At 03:18 AM 3/25/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha
>
>24 March you wrote:
>
>Bo before:
> > >But it's a disappointment that so few understand the "Sutherland"
> > >variety much less the MOQ's in its entirety which is that the said
> > >scientific (objective over subjective) attitude is MOQ's 4th. level
> > >(and the mythological attitude its 3rd.) In this level context there
> > >were no "man" until the social level's language that coined the term
> > >as well as "giving name to all the animals", but no-one started to
> > >explore nature because there was (still is) no nature at the 3rd.
> > >level, "culture/nature" is one of intellect's many dichotomies)
>
>Marsha:
> > Since, Bo, we're all trapped into using a language that is
> > subject/object oriented, and since you cannot know  what type of
> > understanding another individual holds (especially separated from the
> > s/o language), where do you get the ability to make such a judgement
> > as 'disappointment'???  Are you the next all-seeing, all-knowing
> > Messiah?  We all care about the MOQ as much as you do.  Can you not
> > realize this???
>
>No, I'm no Messiah, but at times I feel like a Paul having been
>struck by the light on his way to Damascus and afterwards
>relentlessly pursue his interpretation of the master's teachings.
>Hadn't it been for Paul there possibly had been no Christendom,
>and following this megalomaniac parable I wonder if we have a
>fight for MOQ's soul going on?  Pirsig - like Jesus - is far too
>vague on many points and switches from the most bland
>SOMism to true MOQism.

Greetings Bo,

I think RMP's Metaphysics of Quality is an excellent framework.  I 
think it represents a world's view that's time has come.  That his 
genius pulled it together is certainly astounding.  I would rather 
have the MOQ stay dynamic, than turn into static crap.  It will be 
more useful that way.  Besides, I don't think of Christendom as 
anything but death, destruction and slavery.  Two thousand years ago 
I imagine I would have been on the side of the opposition, The Cult of Isis.



>Language as S/O oriented?  In the grammatical sense perhaps,
>but SOM is more than a subject (an individual) different from
>other individuals they becoming objects in this context, it is the
>"objective attitude" described by ZAMM. Anyway, the MOQ
>introduces the dynamic/static chasm instead of the S/O one (we
>are no longer isolated subjects) and when my references to the
>Newton example raises so many voices of protests and disbelief I
>think I am justified in my disappointment.

I do not believe that gravity existed before Newton.  Does gravity 
inherently exist now?   My answer would be no.  It's an analogy for a 
handy-dandy pattern.  But then so is the MOQ a handy-dandy 
pattern.  It just happens to be one I think quite beautiful.  I also 
think it is, and will continue to be, quite useful as the West moves 
beyond duality.

No, I will not send you a photo of the painting.  (Please don't make 
me sorry I mentioned it.)


Marsha







Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...