[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[John Carl]

Platt and Steve,



> 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.
>
>
Well why the trouble with the word "spirit" and acceptance of the word
"ghost"?  They seem pretty much the same thing to me - the GHOST of reason
is exactly the SPIRIT of reason.

It's all analogy anyway, but my take on the word spirit, a very useful word,
is "software".  Just as spirit breathed into flesh makes a man, software
loaded into hardware makes a computing machine.

Another word for spirit is "mind".

And just like you can have viruses that attack the good software, you can
have bad ideas persist and spread from human to human and I deem this
"spiritual attack".  SOM is a virus infecting modern civilization.

But Good is a spirit, and seeks followers who adhere to spirit and truth.



Steve:
>
> "Why use religious terms?  Indeed, it might be better not to use them
> because they are always misunderstood. But what other terms are there?
>

John:

There ya go Steve.  I see it exactly as you.  The problem isn't in the
terms, the problem is in how they are used (reified and absolutized - in
that order)


Steve:


>  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."
>
>

John:

AMEN.

Steve:


> 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.
>
>
John:

>From your figurative "lips" to god's figurative "ears", may it come to pass,
and quickly.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish."



>
>
> 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..
>
>
>
John:

DQ can be defined, but only in experience.  Demonstrations of DQ in personal
experience may not define it, but they sure do point that ole finger at the
moon.

Good enough for me, but I ain't picky. (like some around here)



>
> 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?
>
>

Geez I'm getting awfully fond of you Steve, you optimist you.


John, keeping the conversation going