[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hi John
We all have our life experiences which color our perceptions of
reality, sure... the way we're raised, where we live, the cultural
mores instilled within us. The MOQ recognizes that, and in fact LILA
goes to great lengths to show how impossible it is to simply observe a
culture and learn anything about it... one has to become immersed
within it.

>John:
>
> 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.

Dan:
Taking some cues from Mark now? I don't have anything "stuck in my
head," John. And for Christ's sake, the breath of God is congruent
with the MOQ? I don't think so. Also, where in any of Robert Pirsig's
writings does it say that the MOQ agrees with the bible? I must have
missed that part.

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

Dan:

If they have value, yes. Frankly, I fail to see it here.

>
>
>> 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.
>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?

Dan:
I don't know that insults are going to get us anywhere, John. And no,
I didn't know God tried to duck the whole problem. Perhaps you should
address these concerns to someone other than me, because I don't see
any value down this road. We won't get far if all you're going to do
is spout insults and yelp about God.

>
>
>>
>> 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.

Dan:
The MOQ is not anti-Christianity, John. Where on earth do you get this
crap? You advise me to read the Copleston annotations more carefully
but then you come up with this nonsense. Come on.


>
>
>  >Dan:
>> 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?
>John:
> 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?".

Dan:
I don't know where to start here. Religious mysticism isn't "we can't
know." It is direct experience absent from all the social and
intellectual layers that religion piles on. You don't seem to
understand what you're agreeing with. This is just nonsense, pure and
simple. I would be embarrassed to send a post like this. If you want
to believe in God, fine. But don't try and shove it down my throat by
telling me the MOQ saves religion by asking if our idea of God is any
good. That's a load of crap.

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

Dan:
Well, that's good then.

>
>
>> 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:
> 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:

Again, if you like that kind of banter, fine. I find it all quite
disappointing and frustrating. And yes, I can see where you might
appreciate insults, chit chat, and shallow discussions, especially
after reading this post of yours. I expect more from you and Marsha,
and that is my fault. So yes, I guess I will follow your advice and
fix the dialogue... easy enough... just leave me out of your
discussions. You and your buddies can have fine time all by
yourselves.

Dan