[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[MarshaV]

Hello Platt & Steve,

I don't see how DQ can be whatever one has in one's mind to make it.  
DQ is unknowable.  Only sq is up for interpretation, but understanding 
that static patterns are interdependent, ever-changing and 
impermanent should encourage some humility and heart.  And I agree 
the conversation needs to continue, but sometimes it is hard to see 
how.    
 
 
Marsha
 
 
 




On May 11, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Platt,
> 
> 
> Platt:
>> Two points. First, the word "spiritual" bothers me as it did Pirsig in the
>> Annotations. Its meanings are too close to theism and the S/O split of
>> body/spirit. Using the word takes us further away from Quality rather than
>> closer to it.
> 
> Steve:
> I often have the same sort of thoughts about the word "God" which is
> generally taken as a theistic conception.
> 
> Years ago I came across this bit from Walter Kaufmann's intro to
> Buber's I and Thou, and it has left me in a state of ambivalence about
> religious terms ever since:
> 
> "Why use religious terms?  Indeed, it might be better not to use them
> because they are always misunderstood. But what other terms are there?
> We need a new language, and new poets to create it, and new ears to
> listen to it. Meanwhile, if we shut our ears to the old prophets who
> still speak more or less in the old tongues, using ancient words,
> occasionally in new ways, we shall have very little music. We are not
> so rich that we can do without tradition. Let those who have new ears
> listen to it in a new way."
> 
> Certainly Pirsig is such a "new poet," but perhaps until we have more
> such new poets, we may do well to listen to some old ones in new ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Platt:
>> Second, there's no assurance that reason of any kind can lead to good
>> premises or conclusions. Any point of view can be rationalized to a fare-
>> the-well. All horrors perpetrated by governments on humanity have been
>> rationally justified as being in the public good. Further, the scientific
>> method, considered by many to be morally neutral and thus a good
>> method to use, cannot explain why being neutral is good.
>> 
>> The main problem as I see it, and is demonstrated here almost every
>> day, is that DQ, the driving force of evolution, cannot be defined and thus
>> becomes whatever anyone has a mind to make it. Being an integral part
>> of the MOQ, this lack of definition leaves the MOQ wide open to varied
>> interpretations, depending on whatever axe one has to grind, the axe
>> being sharpened by reason and selective evidence..
> 
> 
> 
> Steve:
> Given that we had a Mozart and once there were only clouds of space
> dust may give us cause to be optimistic about the good perculating to
> the top despite the fact that no metaphysics is probably ever going to
> give us easy answers to our moral questions. The important thing seems
> to me to be to keep the conversation going--a better alternative to
> hitting one another with clubs and rocks?
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___