[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Dan and everyone,
>
> I just need to clear up one small misconception (mis-conceptualization? Ham
> has confused me.  Again. ;-)  I see frequently:
>
>
>>
>> Dan:
>>   Robert Pirsig states that the MOQ is anti-theistic.
>
>
>John:
> That is not true, Dan.  gav made that mistake too, but if you read it a
> little more carefully he clearly  says that in a certain  regard, the MoQ is
> anti-theistic.  The MoQ as a whole is no more "anti-theistic" than it is
> "anti-theory of gravity".

Dan:

Hi John

I don't believe gav made a mistake. I have taken your advice and read
the Copleston annotations carefully. And just so there are no
misunderstandings or confusions, here are a few annotations:

Copleston: According to Stirling, Hegel was concerned with proving,
among other things, the immortality of the soul.

RMP: In the MOQ there is no soul, except as a literary expression.

Copleston: And though there is little evidence that Hegel felt much
interest in this matter, Stirling's interpretation can be seen as
representing the emphasis placed by the earlier idealists on the
finite spiritual self, an emphasis which harmonized with their
tendency to retain a more or less theistic outlook.

RMP: The MOQ is atheistic.

Copleston: In the third stage, that of 'absolute religion', the
selfconscious subject and its object, Nature, are seen as distinct yet
essentially related, and at the same time as grounded in an ultimate
unity. And God is conceived 'as the Being who is at once the source,
the sustaining power, and the end of our spiritual lives'. This does
not mean, however, that the idea of God is completely indeterminate,
so that we are forced to embrace the agnosticism of Herbert Spencer
For God manifests Himself in both subject and object, and the more we
understand the spiritual life of humanity on the one hand and the
world of Nature on the other, so much the more do we learn about God
who is 'the ultimate unity of our life and of the life of the world'.

RMP: 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.

>John:
> The MoQ solves these problems, rather than affirms or denies them.
>
>
> I highly recommend a closer reading of the Copleston Annotations where this
> infamous aspersion has its origin.  Specifically it is the term "God" that
> is being regarded in this way.  Dropping the term "God" as antiquated and
> outmoded is not the same thing as the MoQ being "anti-theistic."

Dan:
Robert Pirsig isn't saying that the term "God" is antiquated and
outmoded... he is saying it is a relic of evil... pretty strong words,
John. I am not sure what you're arguing? Are you saying the MOQ isn't
anti-theistic? That it supports the notion of God? On what grounds do
you base this notion? Yes, he says "in this regard" but he is saying
it in regards to adding a fourth stage.

It seems clear throughout the Copleston annotations that the MOQ does
not support spiritual notions like the immortality of the soul. How
many times does he have to say it? What is confusing about it?

However, the MOQ equates Dynamic Quality with religious mysticism.
But this doesn't mean the MOQ supports social and intellectual
patterns that prop up religion. Maybe that is the source of your
confusion?

>
>
>
>> Robert
>> Pirsig states that Dynamic Quality is to be kept concept-free. We are
>> here to discuss his work, not mine... at least that is what we are
>> supposed to be here doing.
>>
>> If I may be so bold, what are you doing here, Mark? Oh, I know you
>> like to be insulting and talk nonsense, but honestly, what are you
>> doing here if you don't want to discuss the MOQ? Why not go to another
>> chat group and chat nonsense?
>>
>> Your questions are silly. I am done attempting to have a discussion
>> with you... it is going nowhere fast.
>
>John:
> ah Dan, it is so easy to just give up. If you want quality discourse, I
> recommend a bit more patience.
>

Dan:

Well, if you want to chit chat, then chit chat. I am sorry John, but I
haven't the time or the patience to go over and over the same ground,
especially with a person unwilling to make the effort to even begin
forming an understanding by doing a bit of research before jumping
into discussions way over their head. I am not a teacher. All I ask
for is an intelligent discussion, and when it is clear that isn't
going to happen, then see you later, alligator. What is the sense of
banging one's head against a brick wall?

John:
> Not that I'm one to talk.

Dan:

I appreciate your input, John. It is good to hear from you again.

Dan

PS

>From ZMM:

So I go on. "For example, it seems completely natural to presume that
gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Isaac Newton. It
would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there
was no gravity."

"Of course."

"So when did this law start? Has it always existed?"

John is frowning, wondering what I am getting at.

"What I’m driving at," I say, "is the notion that before the beginning
of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the
primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed."

"Sure."

"Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not
in anyone’s mind because there wasn’t anyone, not in space because
there was no space either, not anywhere...this law of gravity still
existed?"

Now John seems not so sure.

"If that law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don’t know what a
thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity
has passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a
single attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn’t have.
Or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. And yet it
is still ‘common sense’ to believe that it existed."

John says, "I guess I’d have to think about it."

"Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find
yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally
reach only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of
gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other
conclusion makes sense.

"And what that means," I say before he can interrupt, "and what that
means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people’s
heads! It’s a ghost! We are all of us very arrogant and conceited
about running down other people’s ghosts but just as ignorant and
barbaric and superstitious about our own."

"Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?"

"Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as ‘education.""

"You mean the teacher is hypnotizing the kids into believing the law
of gravity?"

"Sure."

"That’s absurd."

"You’ve heard of the importance of eye contact in the classroom? Every
educationist emphasizes it. No educationist explains it."

John shakes his head and pours me another drink. He puts his hand over
his mouth and in a mock aside says to Sylvia, "You know, most of the
time he seems like such a normal guy."

I counter, "That’s the first normal thing I’ve said in weeks. The rest
of the time I’m feigning twentieth-

century lunacy just like you are. So as not to draw attention to myself.

"But I’ll repeat it for you," I say. "We believe the disembodied words
of Sir Isaac Newton were sitting in the middle of nowhere billions of
years before he was born and that magically he discovered these words.
They were always there, even when they applied to nothing. Gradually
the world came into being and then they applied to it. In fact, those
words themselves were what formed the world. That, John, is
ridiculous.

"The problem, the contradiction the scientists are stuck with, is that
of mind. Mind has no matter or energy but they can’t escape its
predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind.
Numbers exist only in the mind. I don’t get upset when scientists say
that ghosts exist in the mind. It’s that only that gets me. Science is
only in your mind too, it’s just that that doesn’t make it bad. Or
ghosts either."

They are just looking at me so I continue: "Laws of nature are human
inventions, like ghosts. Laws of logic, of mathematics are also human
inventions, like ghosts. The whole blessed thing is a human invention,
including the idea that it isn’t a human invention. The world has no
existence whatsoever outside the human imagination. It’s all a ghost,
and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole blessed world
we live in. It’s run by ghosts. We see what we see because these
ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and
Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and
on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your
common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and
thousands of these ghosts from the past. Ghosts and more ghosts.
Ghosts trying to find their place among the living."

Dan comments:

Is the MOQ anti-gravity? Hmmm....