[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[118]

> Yes, I once dared to describe the MoQ acolytes as a "cultist" group and got
> severely reprimanded for it.  They don't like to be called "dogmatic"
> either.  Still, it seems the loyalty to Pirsig is disproportionate to the
> originality of his thesis.  One explanation may be that ZMM became popular
> in the "Flower Child" era when many of the "old guard" were susceptible to
> New Age ideas.  But I really believe the major reason for their devotion is
> the author's sympathy with the secularist movement and its denouncement of
> religiosity, occult spiritualism and supernaturalism.
>
>  I believe the fear of religion, which comes from lack of understanding
>> is what governs this.  Some perceive religion to be somewhat weak
>> or mindless, but in truth those that truly subscribe to religion must be
>> much stronger than those who subscribe to simple logic is the sum
>> total of their stay here.  Using simple logic, of course religion doesn't
>> work.  What that means is that some have additional faculties that are
>> missing from the simpletons. It is their loss, they can rail against it
>> all
>> they want, but they won't get there using math.  Just look at all the
>> great thinkers that were religious.  Those in this forum (myself included)
>> do not even come close to them.  But, as always, history teaches us
>> nothing.
>>
>
> It is "doctrine" that they're revolting against, rather than religion per
> se.  Unfortunately, they don't seem to realize they've replaced the old
> "conservative" doctrine with new "radical" doctrine.  Scientific objectivism
> is universally accepted because the conclusions are fallible, whereas
> philosophical pronouncements can never be.  The trick is to "suggest" the
> theory by innuendo and metaphor without formal definitions or logical
> analysis.  "We don't need to define Quality because everybody knows what it
> is," typifies this approach.  The less definition and analysis, the better
> ... or so they believe.  What they leave out, of course, eventually catches
> up with them.
>
> I'm convinced that Truth is relative to the subject, and that philosophical
> propositions are of little value unless they have credibility to the
> individual who must ultimately choose to embrace them.  This effectively
> rules out dogma, rituals, and moral obligations imposed by external
> authority or social pressure.  Only when man learns to release himself from
> the bonds of "intellectual servitude" will he be truly free to establish the
> "authentic society" which I envision as his future potential.
>
> Are you with me, Mark?
>
> [Mark in reply]
>
No, not quite, but I don't subscribe much to utopian ideas.  Man is what man
is.  I know, utter nonsense, but whatever.  We still have some discussion to
go on "man being the measure of all things".  I still do not see the point
at which differentiation (negation) occurs by your model.  But otherwise I
agree with most of what you said.  Cultist certainly does have some
negativity to it, but rhetoric is key in our discussions.

Back to the dismissal of theism.  Some in this forum state that Quality
cannot be described, because that would encompass it and not truly reflect
Quality.  That is all good and well, and I have no problem with such a
notion.

However, what some do not realize is that such a statement is identical to
the command given by religions that one will not worship false idols.  (I
can see Dave turning red, and covering his ears, singing loudly now).  In
that sense (now Dave and dmb read carefully, in THAT sense), the concept of
Quality is similar to the concept of God.  Why did Jesus go haywire and
destroy a temple, why did the more recent profit prohibit symbols of his
god?  For exactly the same reason that we do not want to define Quality.
 They cannot be encapsulated in idols or in words.  The words of God are all
analogies, again ANALOGIES.  To form a concrete definition of such has the
same value as defining Quality.  It is pre-intellectual, it is intuitive (if
you will).

To apply logic or science to religion is nonsense.  It is charging at
windmills.  So, if the premise is one of anti-theism, they sure seem awfully
similar to me.  Perhaps Religion arises out of Quality, but one could also
say that Quality comes from God (after all, the concept of God came first).
 It's all the same man-made creation, just different words.

Cheers,
Mark

>
> 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
>