[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[John Carl]

Greetings, Dan, Everyone:

I believe I have explained myself quite poorly, Dan, and for that I humbly
apologize.  I need to make a few things clear.  First, I'm just stating my
opinion based upon my perspective of this "MoQ" and I in no way am arguing
for any changes or rejection of Robert M. Pirsig's work and word.  The fact
that I myself have found his words entirely congruent with my own
understandings and formulations means I don't want to change them, even
though I differ in my perspective and my upbringing and thus my own
understanding of terms and meanings.  For instance,   I was raised by two
back-sliding Adventist, who sent me to the church schools to find out for
myself whether or not I wanted to believe in God or not.  So I was exposed
to those teachings from an early age, but with a skeptical and intelligent
mindset.  And I guess I felt the MoQ has always been a help to that sort of
mindset.

That's my perspective in life.  That's where I come from and colors how I
term things.  I don't think the MoQ should be like me.  But I do think it
ought to include tolerance, respect and acceptance for the congruence I
express here.


Please allow me to spell that out a bit more fully, please.
>
> 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.
>

In Seventh Day Adventism, the "soul" is a term gleaned from pagan Rome and
incorporated into modern Christianity by the evil pope (the anti-christ) and
there really is no such thing as natural immortality of the soul nor really
any kind of "soul".  A soul is just a living being.  A combination of dust
in the ground and spirit - the breath of God, and that is a "soul".  When
somebody dies, their spirit leaves (returns to its source) and their flesh
goes back to dust and nothing remains, except in the undifferentiated mind
of God.
So SDAism also agrees with the Bible and the MoQ, but I still wouldn't term
any of those, "antitheistic".  Perhaps it is "anti- (theism that Dan has
stuck in his head), but that's not the same thing at all.   In fact, I also
see the MoQ as being very congruent with Pantheism - which is also obviously
NOT anti-theistic,  and that I believe is the most fruitful direction to go,
social/religious wise today. But then that's because another part of my
perspective is that out of highschool, and on my own, I feel into Deep
Ecology, and actually never really got out.  That was how I met ZAMM, from a
philosophy class at Sierra College.  The same year that the 49ers first used
it as their spring training camp and they won their first super bowl.  I
think Bill Walsh had some surprises he wanted to throw at the rest of the
league and thought out of the way Rocklin would be the ideal venue to
nurture a new system.


Hmmm... I always find congruences sort of interesting, in narrative, don't
you Dan?


> 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.

Yes!  And again, I agree completely.  God did try to duck the whole problem,
ya know, but they use "nameless" as your name and what can you do?  It's
like trying to keep a drunk out of a bar, or a man away from metaphysics.
Impossible problem!  And evil takes advantage and here we are.  What do you
think the most fruitful direction is, society -wide?  Tarot cards?


>
> 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?
>

Well, I hope I've cleared that up a bit.  Maybe some scripture would help:
 One of my favorites, starting at Eccl. 3:18, and demonstrating at least as
much metaphysical accuracy as anything I've read of Buddha:

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God
might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are
beasts.

Ecc 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one
thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have
all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all
[is] vanity.

Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again.

Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of
the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Ecc 3:22 Wherefore I perceive that [there is] nothing better, than that a
man should rejoice in his own works; for that [is] his portion: for who
shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

Now admittedly, this sure doesn't sound like the stuff you hear from
preachers.  If Robert Pirsig is anti-Christianity, then it's easy to
understand why.  And so am I, for that matter and many of the same reasons.
 But like I've said before, at least according to my understandings,
atheistic means you don't believe in God.  Anti-theistic just means you're
pissed off at him.


 >
> 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?

Well "religious mysticism" is big fancy philosopholgy for "we can't really
know", right?  And with that, I agree completely.  What the MoQ does, is
save religion from itself.  It cures the religious problems that come in
with worshipping dogmatic conceptualizations, by always asking anew "Is your
idea about 'God', any good?"  Just as the MoQ saves Intellect from itself by
asking "is your idea about 'Truth' doing any good?".


And it's funny you should ask, because truthfully, I don't *feel* confused.


> 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?
>


I suppose like all such endeavors, that's something you have to discover for
yourself.  I don't know what to say.  I myself have enjoyed some of the
fruitful new discussions lately. I think Mark, Tim and Marsha are adding
Quality Discourse to my day, every day.  So if you find no peace of mind
with your dialogue, fix it!  Just like any motorcycle maintenance problem.
 Peace of mind is all.



> Dan comments:
>
> Is the MOQ anti-gravity? Hmmm....

Anti-gravity?
Yes!  Because it floats above all else while remaining down to earth.  :)

But not anti-*theory* of gravity.

The *theory* of gravity is a ghost.
God is a ghost.
John is a ghost.
RMP is a ghost haunting us all!

The MoQ isn't anti-ghost.  It's for dealing with ghosts so as to have the
most peace of mind.

Here's to yours,

John the ghostly