[MD] Zen and theArt of Religion

[Andre Broersen]

John Carl:
Here is the passage I recently read, that sounded like an MOQ approach to religion. 

Andre:
The „ MOQ” approach to religion is very clear John. We all know this. In the MOQ religion is a social pattern of value…just one of many. Unless you consider dancing an expression of religion or attending a game of football an expression of religion or going to secondary school an expression of religion ( or, for that matter Law, economics, politics , warfare,watching TV, having a shower… it is endless as far as social patterns are concerned).

John says to Dan:
But whatever Pirsig said, the point should be obvious to any reasonable person - "social" is a term with wide scope.

Andre:
Dan has been very kind and very patient with you John…to the point of healing doctors making stinking wounds. You just do not get it do you? Social, as far as the MOQ is concerned does not have the scope you suggest it is. Pirsig clearly said that if you extend it to the level of organic values… it loses all its meaning. May as well talk of a society of flowers instead of a bunch of flowers…a society of air bubbles instead of the sky, a society of inorganic patterns and we call a mountain. Pirsig made it clear that if and when you fuck around with definitions you get screwed as far as the MOQ is concerned. 

Whatever turns you on John.

John suggesting ( to Dan ) an improvement to LILA:
 Well, I don't think the slice was rotten, I just think it needs further slicing.

Andre:
Wanna slice DQ/sq any further? Into what…1/4, 1/8,?…you seem to not understand one fart ( and that ain’t much…) of MOQ experience.

John:
What is culture then but codified social patterns - turned into rules and truisims, matters of law and matters of courtesy?

Andre:
Culture, in the MOQ is a combination of social and intellectual patterns of value John. It is one of the ways through which the intellectual level distinguishes  itself from barbarism ( as I see it this is a combination of organic and social values…that clash vehemently [ NOT a competition as you seem to maintain… just realize the fait of your countrymen at the hands of IS]

John:
Definitions are social agreements. You can't go your own way on this.

Andre:
They are not John. They are intellectual agreements…if they are agreed upon intellectually. It has nothing to do with fame, fortune or glory . The rate of exposure to these sorts of social values intertwining with intellectual values is embarrassing…and quickly destroyed. 

John:
Well more definition doesn't take the term out of context - it narrows the context. 

Andre:
A good definition does not narrow the context…it broadens it John. Just capture the MOQ [and all is said].

John:
I've got a lot more to say on this subject, inspired by some reading that I'm going to share soon.  Different thread, probably. Pirsig raised the issue of resolving science and religion in ZAMM, but somehow since then its become a verboten subject.

Andre:
Verboten for whom? Seems that the connotation YOU give the subject is not in line with the MOQ. Maybe you need to think about this some more John…or rather perhaps you need to do some growing up about this and ruthlessly confront yourself with your values.  

Are you really certain you understand what Pirsig means by  the world being composed of nothing but moral value? That is, amongst other things the argument that he resolved wirth the issue of science and religion? 

For fuck sake…re-read LILA John. Your posts are embarrassing