[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[david buchanan]

RMP said:
In the MOQ there is no soul, except as a literary expression. ...The MOQ is atheistic. ...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 said:
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 replied:
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?  ...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?


dmb says:

Right. Pirsig is saying that the MOQ goes beyond atheism. In a certain regard, it is also anti-theistic. And in what sense is it actually opposed to theism? Pirsig is invoking the MOQ's evolutionary morality. He's saying that theism is at the social level and that it is less evolved and less free than DQ or even intellectual level patterns. And we can watch Pirsig get increasingly irritated with these Idealist notions because he can see that they are trying to make philosophy conform to those old social level theistic notions. He can see that they are bending philosophy to make it support their faith.

That is the sense in which the MOQ is ANTI-theistic. It is immoral to make the higher bend to the lower. 

And that is exactly what our resident theists always want to do to the MOQ. The want to bend it to make it support their faith. This is not just incorrect and it's not just a conceptual error. It is also immoral. It's bogus and evil. It's not evil like a chainsaw massacre but it's definitely bad. Very bad. The MOQ paints the history of the past century as a conflict between social and intellectual values and the Idealist's use of philosophy to prop up their religion is very much a part of that conflict. 

Sadly, we've always had a number of posters who are not only on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of evolution and the wrong side of morality, they abuse anyone who disagrees with this profound wrongness.


Dan said to John:
.., 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?


dmb says:

I'm convinced that theists are incorrigible for psychological reasons and they cannot or will not be corrected by evidence or reason. And if that's where you're at, so to speak, your place is in a church and you shouldn't be surprised when your theism is not well received in a philosophy discussion. Considering the atheistic and even anti-theistic stance of the MOQ's author, you'd have to be a bit nuts to think that kind of thing would fly in this context. Waving the theism flag around here is way beyond mere confusion, my friend. 


If a reasonable person were merely confused, textual evidence would draw a very different response. Instead of hostility and abuse, the provider of that evidence would likely get further questions, a reasonable counter argument, other pieces of relevant evidence and maybe even some gratitude. But if you NEED to maintain certain beliefs for emotional or psychological reasons, then any criticisms or corrections will be felt as an attack upon the very core of their being, as a profoundly personal rejection or even as a form of persecution. You ever notice how the theists tend to frame this disputes in terms of who is in authority or who's getting kicked out or even in terms of who is violating whose "rights"? It's all a bit paranoid and grandiose. It almost makes me wish there were some kind of logic cop, one that had the "authority" to MAKE you think clearly - at gunpoint. Like some intellectual Dirty Harry, he'd point that Colt 45 at the theist and say, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" "Well, do ya?" And when Harry pulled the trigger, these quotes would shoot right into his unlucky, God-fearing head.

Pirsig in Lila, near the end of chapter 30:
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of DQ, a sign-post which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see DQ. The problem has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the DQ they were originally intended to preserve."

Pirsig in the annotations:
"In the MOQ there is no soul, except as a literary expression. ...The MOQ is atheistic. ...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."

In chapter 30 of Lila Pirsig says:
"In all religions bishops tend to gild Dynamic Quality with all sorts of static interpretations because their cultures require it. But these interpretations become like golden vines that cling to a tree, shut out its sunlight and eventually strangle it." 

"... once this integrations occurs and DQ is identified with religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to what Dynamic Quality is. A lot of this religious mysticism is just low-grade 'yelping about god', of course, but if you search for the sources of it and don't take the yelps too literally a lot of interesting things turn up."