[MF] MOQ and theism

[david buchanan]

Hello MOQers and theists:

Sam said:
...you need to get clear on what is meant by 'theism', ie what it is that 
Pirsig is rejecting with the MoQ, and what it is that may or may not be 
claimed by, eg, Christianity.

Kevin said:
For the record, theism, for me, is about the belief that God is a person who 
is present in the world.

dmb says:
I want to start by thanking Marsha for re-posting those relevant Pirsig 
quotes and Anthony for clarifying the source of those quotes. Secondly, I'd 
like to suggest that answering the question of where theism fits in the MOQ 
should not revolve around any particular sectarian claims, what it means 
"for me", what will offend grandma or how we see it on any particular 
morning. Instead, I think the question has to be approched in broader, 
historical terms. It seems that theists might be tempted to carefully define 
"theism" so as to MAKE it fit into the MOQ, but I think the issue is best 
understood in terms of an evolutionary struggle in Western history. The 
author of the MOQ has already described the MOQ as anti-theistic. That much 
is pretty clear. I think the trick is to understand WHY theism would be a 
problem for the MOQ, to understand what Pirsig is rejecting.

Kevin replied to Anthony:
I'd like to take a closer look at the indeterminate vs.determinate argument. 
  I'm not sure I would agree with Northrop's view on this. Sounds like an 
argument for holding God in a box. ...And I'd like to hear more about why 
you believe Dynamic Quality has no personality.  ...The question that I 
ponder is, is the Quality of Pirsig's MoQ in any way like a theist's God?

dmb says:
Huh? Isn't Northrop argument is AGAINST putting God in a box. Likewise, DQ 
cannot rightly be equated with a theistic God because DQ cannot be put into 
a box. Take another look. Northrop says (In “Logic of the Sciences & 
Humanities”,p.376-77):

“The divine object in the West is an unseen God the Father. This means that 
He cannot be known by the aesthetic intuition after the manner of the divine 
being of the Orient. Christ tells us that His kingdom is not of this world. 
St. Paul asserts that the things that are seen are temporal and that it is 
only the things which are unseen which are eternal. All the theistic 
religions affirm in addition that the determinate personality is immortal.  
Certainly this is not true of the self given with immediacy in the aesthetic 
intuition….  Western religion becomes [therefore] defined as one which 
identifies the divine with the timeless or invariant factor in the theoretic 
component [of knowledge].”

I think the contrast between "aesthetic intuition" and "the theoretic 
component" can be seen as a contrast between DQ and sq. And this makes all 
the difference. This is why Pirsig says that only a true mystic can equate 
DQ with God and why the MOQ is anti-theistic. Please recall Pirsig's 
description of Plato's blunder, that he tried to "encapsulate" the Good and 
thereby turned it into a "fixed and rigid" thing. This is the same sort of 
"theoretic component" which is to be contrasted with "aesthetic intuition". 
Or, to put it in more ordinary terms, hypothetical entities are different 
than actual experience.

And as Robert Morrsion explains it in Volume 1 of the WESTERN BUDDHIST 
REVIEW, Platonic forms and theistic gods are part of the same 
"encapsulation" problem. "In the West, this Platonic world-view provided the 
theological framework for Christianity. As Augustine tells us, 'Christianity 
is Platonism for the people'.  Plato's 'True World' becomes Christianised as 
the 'Kingdom of God', which is now accessible to more than philosophers as 
one can enter it by faith alone. However, the object of faith can only be 
verified at death-what is called 'eschatological verification'." I think 
that it makes a great deal of sense to see Pirsig's anti-theism and 
anti-Platonism as part of the same move, as a matter of consistancy. Theism 
got hooked up with Plato's "fixed and rigid" things long ago, you see? Its a 
problem that effects the whole culture, its a cultural "blindspot" that 
effects religion just as much as metaphysics...

Robert Morrison in the WBR:
"Nietzsche's assertion that 'God is Dead' is not simply a theological 
statement. This statement, although it certainly does have its theological 
aspect, is essentially a statement proclaiming the plight of modern Western 
culture. Succinctly stated, the 'Death of God' refers to the complete loss 
of belief in the accepted religious and metaphysical world-view along with 
the system of values it upholds, in particular its moral values. The 'Death 
of God' announces the advent of the age of
nihilism, an age of cultural barrenness arising from this loss of belief, 
and which may well end in catastrophe as far as any truly human existence is 
concerned."

When the problem is framed this way, as "the plight of modern Western 
culture", I think the MOQ looks like a pretty good solution. Seems pretty 
safe to say that Pirsig sees the loss of morals and values as a catastrophe 
and that his solution entails ressurecting the Quality of the Sophists. He 
takes us back to take a look at their "unencapsulated" Quality. This is the 
problem with metaphysics AND religion in the West. Despite the bitter 
differences, they've both buried DQ under a pile of static theories or 
static doctrines.

"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the 
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of DQ, a sign-post which 
allows socially pattern-dominated people to see DQ. The problem has always 
been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what they 
merely represent and are allowed to destroy the DQ they were originally 
intended to preserve."

As Northrop, Pirsig, Campbell and many others suggest, part of the solution 
to this plight will be to look at the non-theistic spriritual traditions of 
the east...

"Already in the 8th century B.C., in the Chhandogya Upanisad, the key word 
to such a meditation is announced; TAT TVAM ASI, "Thou art That", or "You 
yourself are It!". The final sense of a religion such as Hinduism or 
Buddhism is to bring about in the individual an experience, one way or 
another, of his own IDENTITY with that mystery that is the mystery of all 
being. ...it is the mystery also of many of our own Occidental mystics; and 
many of these have been burned for having said as much. Westward of Iran, in 
all three of the great traditions that have come to us from the Near Eastern 
zone, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, such concepts are unthinkable 
and sheer heresy. God created the world. Creator and creature cannot be the 
same, since, as Aristotle tells us, A is not-A. Our theology, therefore, 
begins from the point of view of waking consciousness and Aristotelian 
logic; whereas, on another level of consciousness - and this, the level to 
which all religions must finally refer - the ultimate mystery transcends the 
laws of dualistic logic, causality and space-time. Anyone who says, as Jesus 
is reported to have said (John 10:30), 'I and the Father are One', is 
declared in our tradition to have blasphemed."

The microwave oven just went "ding", which means its time to eat my palak 
paneer, which happens to be an Indian dish.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/