[MD] Zen and theArt of Religion

[John Carl]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.


Jc:  Your words are absolutely clear, Andre.  I can see right through
them.  To the exact wording that Pirsig used and while I have to give you
an "A" for scholarly accuracy, If that's all there is to your MOQ then I'm
afraid you've missed the whole point.


AB:

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).
>
>
Jc:  Dancing can be a form of religion.  as well as Law, economics, warfare
and TV.  All can be seen in a religious context, if you think of religion
as it truly is - the sharing of deep value.


> 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.
>
>
Jc:  You can narrow it down to human society, and it still has wide scope -
football, economics, academic associations, rotary club minutes, etc, etc.
What would you call a single term that encompassed all that territory, if
not of wide scope?

 What turns me on is rational discourse and also the defeating of
irrational discourse.  The exposure of a fool gives me almost as much
pleasure as uttering a profundity.  More, in fact,  I'm lazy and fools are
common whereas profundity is rare.  So thanks for all the good times, A-B.


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?


Jc:  What happened to all your scholarly accuracy?  I never said that.  I
said the term social could be divided.  I never mentioned DQ.

AB:


> Into what…1/4, 1/8,?…you seem to not understand one fart ( and that ain’t
> much…) of MOQ experience.
>
>
Jc:  You've made your point perfectly and I smell your pain.  You think the
MOQ experience can be confined to words and exact definitions.  You are
sadly lost, my friend.
And I doubt I can help you.  I know the way out of the dark wood you're in,
but you don't like or trust me.  There's not much I can say.




> 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.



Jc:  You've crossed the line to the irrational now.  I got nothing to say
to de-constructive nihilists.


AB:


> Just capture the MOQ [and all is said].
>
>
Jc:

"Rhetoric is an art, Aristotle began, because it can be reduced to a
rational system of order.
That just left Phædrus aghast. Stopped. He’d been prepared to decode
messages of great subtlety, systems of great complexity in order
to understand the deeper inner meaning of Aristotle, claimed by many to be
the greatest philosopher of all time. And then to get hit,
right off, straight in the face, with an asshole statement like that! It
really shook him."

And here we are, less than 50 years latter, Andre-Buchanan can utter the
same idea, dressed in an "MOQ" blanket, and nobody on this forum but I can
see the great error, the huge mistake that is.  A statement that violates
the very heart and spirit of the MoQ, That any sort of static pattern holds
the keys on "all there is to say". Also contradictory to the doctrine of
pragmatism and radical empiricism.   All is never said.  Conceptualization
is subordinate to experience.


> 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?



Jc:  Yes, as I've mentioned before, I read ZAMM in the context of my own
philosophic search for moral value and thus Pirsig's work helped me a great
deal in understanding more widely, the problems with S/O view.


Ab:



> That is, amongst other things the argument that he resolved wirth the
> issue of science and religion?
>
>
Jc:

"In the area of Religion, the rational relationship of Quality to the
Godhead needs to be more thoroughly established, and this
I hope to do much later on."

A-B:

For fuck sake…re-read LILA John. Your posts are embarrassing
>
>
Lila didn't deal much with religion beyond making it subordinate to
intellect.   The way that has worked out is we don't talk religion at all.
I know you think that is good, because you associate religion with
fundamentalism but it's a pattern that humans have always engaged in, as
far as our
evidence says.  And besides, there's a lot of discussion of biological
patterns and inorganic patterns on this list.  I think there is more to be
said on the subject of religion.
For instance, it makes sense to see that in millinial terms, new religions
evolve out of new ideas and perhaps it is the case that SOM has fallen from
being an intellectual patter to
a social one - a sort of religion.  And that's not bad.  You pointed out
that the cosmos is nothing but a moral order - well religion deals with
inculcating moral order, and if any idea is to
take hold, it has to reach religious status.


And I'm sorry to embarrass you so.  Its bound to happen when we all get
thrown together in one group, the idiots and smart-asses in one place.
I can't help it that I uncover your shame.  It's just my nature to be
honest.

Jc