[MD] Moving On

[118]

Hi Arlo,
You ask some good questions of a murky (dynamic) area.  We are trying
to place definitions on things that are difficult to do so with.
Having said that, I will do my best to answer your questions below.

On 5/8/12, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Mark]
> When I say "religious", I am referring to the dogmatic dictatorial
> leadership of something like the Christian Church. ... In terms of theism.
> I personally do not have a problem with that word since it implies knowing
> of that which cannot be defined.
>
> [Arlo]
> Hi Mark, okay, knowing how you use these terms helps. I sometimes hear this
> distinction referred to as 'religion-spirituality', which brings me to what
> you may have answered, do you find any difference between 'theistic' and
> 'spiritual'? Can one be 'spiritual' without being 'theistic'? Can I ask if
> you'd read Pirsig's use of the term "spiritual rationality" to be akin to
> "theistic rationality"?

I find the whole subject of spiritual rationality fascinating.  I wish
we would speak more about what we see that as meaning.  If I were to
try to pigeonhole the concepts of theism and spirituality, I would so
as follows:  Spirituality refers to the "world" which lies outside of
the material.  Theism is the belief in a single source for all.  So,
no, for me theistic rationality would be something different.
>
> I'm harping on this a bit because, as I understand the terms, this seems to
> conflate two concepts I typically separate. That is, to me 'theism' points
> to the definition, where 'spirituality' points to the undefined. This is one
> reason I consider Buddhism a non-theism, and I think most Buddhists use the
> terms this way too. And further down I hold religion to be the social
> manifestation of power, not even necessarily a 'defined'. So I'd consider
> Aquinas a theistic author, Pat Robertson a religious author, Thich Nhat Hanh
> a non-theistic author, and Joseph Campbell (along with Pirsig) an
> anti-theistic author. Of course by anti-theistic I am specifically saying
> "anti-defined" and I admit the lines between non-theism and anti-theism are
> difficult to parse at times (as are the lines between religion and theism).

Yes, I can understand what you say above.  In this case your theism
would be my religious.  That makes sense to me, and I can certainly
use theism in that sense.  Your religious is also my religious.  This
whole notion of "defined" is really quite nebulous to me.  I have
addressed this in many posts.  What exactly is defined in theistic
belief?  If we say that Quality is a source, does that not define it?
If we say there are two kinds of Quality which we can speculate on,
does this not provide a definition?  So far as I am concerned,
definitions only serve to allow for conversation.  I believe that when
definitions are used for more than that, that we fall into the Western
mentality that MoQ is seeking to point out.

As you allude to below, we create an "artificial" structure of reality
through words, thinking that this explains things.  The truth is that
nothing is explained, we have simply created a bunch of concepts that
we can agree on.  We can all agree that the "big dipper" looks like a
dipper, but that does not make it one.  We can all agree on certain
aspects of Quality, but that does not make Quality those things.  This
is where I believe spiritual rationality comes in.  It lies beyond the
bewitchment of words.  Leaving something undefined means (to me) that
we can not talk about it.  This is no different from Islam and their
God, or the knights that say “Nih”.
>
> Given this, I think we may agree on some central points despite using
> differing terminology. I'll try to remember that your 'theism' is my
> 'spirituality' (or even non-theism) and your comments about Pirsig being
> "theistic" despite claiming to be "anti-theistic" makes sense if I read this
> as "definitional despite claiming to be anti-definitional", since yes he
> admits in LILA that he is, in fact, defining the undefined in a way. As
> Pirsig acknowledges, even saying "X is undefined" is defining X. (This
> reminds me of a quote used in Maus by Art Spiegelman, "Samuel Beckett once
> said, "Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness."
> ...On the other hand, he SAID it.")

Yeah, I think we can try to use words in the same way.  I am always
happy to clarify a word that seem to you to be used incorrectly.  It
is this whole idea that we can actually define something that does not
make sense to me.  At least, this is where Quality has led me.  You
know, analogies of analogies.  It would seem that once that is
accepted, the whole world of artificial meaning can fall apart which
is what I think is what happened to Pirsig.  It certainly happened to
me, but is not something that one can describe in such a way that
another can understand.  One has to be there when everything dissolves
away into new meaning.

Beckett was way too depressing for me.  I do not think he was very
spiritual, at least in the manner I understand that word.  Life was
just a matter of "waiting" for him.  But of course I have not read
everything he wrote.
>
> [Mark]
> Moving over to MoQ.  We seem to be parcing the words which Pirsig spoke or
> wrote in the same manner as the bible is read by many.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well the other extreme is to allow anything anyone says Pirsig says to stand
> as being as valid as anything else. Somewhere there has to be clarity, if we
> are to even speak of Pirsig's ideas (or Plato's or Nietzsche's or anyone's).
> In lieu of claims that Pirsig said "X", I'm not sure what else one should do
> but offer contradictory quotes by the author in question, no?

Yes, I will agree with that.  I do not often support what I say with
what Pirsig said.  If I am inconsistent with what others believe MoQ
is, they usually tell me.  Either I argue the point, or I accept it.
As I see it, Pirsig could have described Quality in many, many ways.
I do not spend too much time on the specific words or phrases he uses.
 To do so, would put the words above Quality which is what MoQ
cautions against.

>
> I think I see a lot of the problem here being one of concern over 'who
> speaks for' and this really never interested me. I want to know what Pirsig
> said not to worship him, but to make clear decisions about what I accept and
> what I reject. While I find much value in Pirsig's thoughts, the end-game
> for me is not to recite Pirsig, but to make informed decisions as I
> integrate his ideas into all the others that form the general whirl of
> thoughts in my dialogues. Right now I am very interested in how Pirsig's
> ideas gel nicely with structuration theories (such as Bourdieu) and
> Nietzsche's works.

Hmmm sounds interesting.
>
> So I think there is a difference in pursuing clarity to make informed
> decisions and pursuing obedience. Does this make sense?

Yes, strange as it may seem, I try to be clear with what I am presenting.
>
> [Mark]
> I find Gödel’s theorem to demonstrate that math and logic are human
> creations and are therefore self-referential.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think this holds true for all symbolic systems, including the most
> ubiquitous, "language". This, to me, is the point behind "all this is just
> an analogy ((including this statement) and this one)...)" It is the root of
> the problem "'X is undefined' is a definition". When we push the boundaries
> of what language can do, very odd things happen.
>
> [Mark]
> The musings of a photon are no different than our own, at a fundamental
> level.  This is how the universe can be made of moral fabric.  This is how
> everything can have free will.
>
> [Arlo]
> I agree with this with one caveat. The potential range of 'will' for a
> photon is significantly less varied than the range of 'will' for a
> social-human (or even a feral-biological human). To me, that is the
> fundamental value of the evolutionary levels, to increase potential. Its not
> that things become 'more free' in a wholly unconstrained sense (which is
> impossible) but their structure affords them greater possibility to response
> to value. This, I'd argue, is why the biological level is morally superior
> to the inorganic level, because it affords patterns a greater possibility to
> respond to Quality.

I would have to disagree with you on the range thing.  A photon makes
choices just like we do.  If human activity were viewed from afar, I
believe the conclusion would be that there is no range to our choices.
  If there is harmony in action (such as with a light beam), this does
not mean a narrow range of choices, this just means that the choices
being made coincide.  It means that they are choices of high value.
If lots of people like ice cream, this does not mean they have a
narrow range of choice, it just means that ice cream is a high value
choice.  It is all about betterness as something tangible.

At the individual level, all statistics fall apart.  We have no idea
what the individual choices of a photon are, just like a sociologist
or a population psychologist has no idea what the individual is
thinking.  They can only deal with statistics.  When it comes to light
or quantum physics, all we have is statistics.  This is why there seem
to be so many strange ideas coming out of quantum physics and
population psychology (economics).
>
> [Mark]
> I have two of those [theism, anti-theism, atheism], how many do you have?
>
> [Arlo]
> Given that we are using these words differently, when I say two as well, we
> may mean the same thing but have selected different words.

Yes, it is no grey bearded man in the sky for me.  What nonsense!

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
>