[MD] MOQ is good. What is it good for?

[T-REXX Techs]

Thanks to David, Arlo, and Mary for detailed and thoughtful responses to my
issues.  I appreciate the time and effort you devoted to my inquiries and
concerns.  You were generous of your time and your scholarship.  In
response, I will think deeply about the insights you have contributed, and I
will apply them to my "project'.  I have been working on a major "thesis"
covering several metaphysical systems that relate to MOQ, especially those
that have interpreted evolution or incorporated cosmic evolution into their
fabric.  I have completed chapters on the work of Henri Bergson and of
Teilhard de Chardin.  I will undertake Pirsig's chapter next, including
highlights of ZMM, and will articulate the MOQ as I understand it.  Then I'd
like to submit it to for review, especially of my explanation of the MOQ.
David is right to insist that I can't presume to extend or supplement or
improve upon the MOQ unless I know it inside and out and understand what it
really says.  As Arlo points out, it will also be important to distinguish
and make clear what Pirsig says and what the MOQ says.

Dan, in Issue 11, in addition to your gracious response to positive comments
I had made about your contributions, you suggested that I had been hasty to
judge Andre.  You were right.  Soon after that I contact Andre personally.
I was moved by his candor and sincerity.  I offered my hand (metaphorically)
in fellowship, and he graciously accepted.  We have mended fences and gained
each other as respected colleagues.  Let me be clear, if I wasn't in issue
11, I apologize publicly to Andre and wish to acknowledge him as a good,
sincere, and helpful scholar.

So thank you all again for your valued contributions.

Wish me luck with my "homework"!



John L. McConnell
Home:  407-857-2004
Cell:      321-438-6301
Email:   trexxtechs at bellsouth.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Moq_Discuss [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf
Of moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 3:12 PM
To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 106, Issue 13

Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to
	moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	moq_discuss-owner at lists.moqtalk.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: MOQ is good.  What is it good for? (Mary)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:47:48 -0600
From: "Mary" <marysonthego at gmail.com>
To: <lilasquad at googlegroups.com>, "Mary" <marysonthego at gmail.com>,
	<kennywittler at gmail.com>, <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ is good.  What is it good for?
Message-ID: <010501cfce4d$16b889b0$44299d10$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Someone who is distractingly named John on MD, but is not our John at LS
said:

If I'm misunderstanding the MOQ, please show me.  But I don't see how I can
be mistaken.  It clearly stops at the intellectual level and clearly says,
"That's all there is."  But that's not "all there is" for me!
>From my view, the transcendent experience of faith and worship is more
Dynamic than intellectual experience, and its patterns are further advanced,
Dynamically, than intellectual ones.

Mary:
This argument is around a lot.  If science or the MoQ doesn't validate
religion - my religion anyway - then there's something wrong with science or
the MoQ. My experience of the divine is completely real, it is said, and I
know I've experienced God, etc., etc. 

John2 cont'd:
you haven't excluded religion???
C'mon!!  The only religion you haven't excluded is Buddhism.  You have made
it patently clear that you and Pirsig are anti-theistic.  The MOQ tolerates
religion but does not accept it as anything more than a flawed social
pattern.  You have dismissed faith in God as "garbage, low quality".
(Pirsig seems somewhat more tolerant.)

 Pirsig avers that the four levels of the MOQ embrace all of evolution and
of human experience.  Well, it deliberately (and I think arbitrarily)
excludes the most significant dimension of my human experience!  I feel like
someone who sees colors, and you see shades of grey and insist that seeing
color is "very low quality".  I agree that some "very low quality" patterns
have been of religion and in the name of religion. What's very low quality
is subversion of color vision (faith) to social institutions that screw it
up, or to bad intellectual constructs that are used to judge and abuse other
people.  But seeing color isn't a bad thing just because you don't!

Mary:
There's the crux of the issue.  Not fair!  Not fair, you cry!  Why don't you
treat my religion with the same respect you show for science?

Well, as DMB is fond of saying, the MoQ is based on experience.  I agree for
the most part, and would add that this must be extended to bring clarity.
Get this. The MoQ is based on experience but NOT on your interpretation of
experience.  

If you choose to interpret a personal sense of well-being, for instance, as
being caused by God, that is your interpretation of experience, and static
interpretation has very little to do with the actual experience.

Simple.  

Same goes for science, to be completely fair.  We used to think the earth
was flat.  That was the epitome of science in its day; but then, somebody
showed that the experience that looked like the earth was flat, was a wrong
interpretation of the experience!

The point is, the experience did not change, but the static interpretation
did.

The biggest mistake a person can make is believing that their interpretation
of experience is the only right one.  That causes trouble (and things like
ISIS/ISIL).  I'm sure they believe America is being unfair to them too.

When religion, of any type, provides the most satisfactorily logical
interpretation of reality, then, and only then, will people unite behind
your interpretation of experience.

Best,
Mary of LS



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org


------------------------------

End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 106, Issue 13
********************************************