[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[MarshaV]

On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:27 PM, John Carl wrote:

> Thanks Marsha, for doing the digging.
> 
> RMP sez:
> 
> <<<<<The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term “God” is completely
> dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic
> freedom.   The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard.  It is
> anti-theistic. >>>>>""
> 
> 
> -------------
> 
>> 
>> I don't get what you are suggesting.  It seems clear to me that the fourth
>> stage represents the MoQ point-of-view.  Quality  as the Ultimate Truth is
>> based on experience with no need of faith.   You may understand it
>> differently, and that's fine, but you will need to convince me that the the
>> MoQ includes god as a necessary, high quality concept.
>> 
>> 
> No, I couldn't convince you of that because I don't believe that.
> Necessary?  What makes any particular term or word "necessary"?  Saying the
> three letter word G-O-D is necessary would preclude and exclude all other
> valuable fingers pointing to the same moon.  I mean, what about the
> FSM<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Sphagetti_Monster>?
> for instance.
> 
> My point is more particularly that the use of the shorthand term "god" to
> represent ultimate value is no more degraded than defining it "Quality" or
> dancing with bar ladies.  What terms work best to communicate most is what's
> at stake.
> 
> Pirsig is addressing the pragmatic usefulness of "G-O-D" as a term due to
> its history of association with social repression by religious forces that
> were (and are) evil - devoted to the preservation of their own static
> patterns opposed to DQ.


Hi John,

And I think the use of the term "god" much more degrading because of the
commonly acknowledged definitions, connotations and history.  I think RMP
chose the most appropriate label.  Stripping the word "god" of all the garbage
would be near impossible, imho.


> 
> That's not the same thing as true atheism.  Which is more along the lines
> Krimel advocated with the world and all that is being the product of random
> chance, with no positive force behind any of it.  No matter what you call
> it.

Here's the definition of atheism I use:  Atheists are people who believe that god 
or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and 
legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.  If Krimel has
a more esoteric, sophisticated definition that's fine but it would seem to narrow
the discussion to only those individuals who share his definition.


> 
> 
> I agree that one does not need faith to perceive Quality, whereas it does
> take a sort of faith to perceive God.  Just one more way that Quality and
> God are differing concepts.  I guess the purest way I can make the
> distinction is that you can ask if God is any good, but you can't really ask
> if Quality is any good.  God is measured by Quality, not the other way
> around.
> 
> Does that make sense?


Perfect sense.  So what is benefit of holding on to the concept of God?  



Marsha




 
___