[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?

[david buchanan]

Steve, Kevin and all lovers of love:



Steve said:
...I went for a long drive in the country today, and took notice of a very 
common sign outside of a church; It simply said 'GOD IS LOVE' ...I wondered 
as I pondered it, where that would fit into our [typical] MOQ 
discussions...I wonder what Pirsigs' stance on that statement would 
be...Anyone?

dmb says:
I've just finished reading the MF threads and for some odd reason decided to 
jump in here. I say odd because I don't really have any ideas to assert or 
defend. In fact, I'm wondering if its even possible to discuss statements 
like "God is love". It seems to me that this common sign expresses a certain 
sentimental attitude and it announces the emotional inclinations of the 
people who put up the sign and run the church, but intellectually that 
statement has no meaning. It seems to me that trying to find a place for 
this within the MOQ is a little bit like trying to discover the metaphysical 
implications of a greeting card from Hallmark. Naturally, I would encourage 
anyone who disagrees to provide an explanation as to the meaning of that 
sign and otherwise show me the light on this point.

We can only guess how Pirsig would react, of course, but I have to tell you 
that my first reaction to the question was to imagine the man rolling his 
eyes and muttering "Sentimental Bullshit!" under his breath. But thats 
probably just projection on my part.

On Feb 18, in the "onward and downward" thread, Kevin said:
When I began this conversation back in 12/20/2005 with the question, "Where 
is theism in the MoQ?" I honestly didn't know where it would wind up.  I 
have since come to learn that the Metaphysics of Quality, according to 
Pirsig's two books, does not provide a satisfactory response, for me, to 
faith, hope and love.  And because my expectation was that I would find it 
in the MOQ I'm disappointed and a little frustrated.

dmb says:
I'll remind you that Pirsig says the MOQ is anti-theistic and views faith as 
very low quality, as a willingness to believe unbelievable things. I'll also 
remind you that its extremely difficult to figure out what you mean by the 
word. You may recall my complaint that I've never heard an explanation that 
made any sense to me. And if I don't know what you mean when you use the 
word "faith", then it is quite impossible to locate that meaning within the 
MOQ - or anywhere else for that matter. Love is slightly less confusing to 
me simply because I know what love is from first hand experience. But then I 
have to ask what kind of love? Since this word usually appears along with 
its buddies, hope and faith, then I would have to guess that you're talking 
about the kind of love that is equated with God. In that case, again, I have 
no idea what you mean when you use the word. Naturally, I don't know what 
you mean by the word "God" either. The only word that seems pretty clear to 
me is "is". Otherwise, I have no idea what it means to say that "God is 
love". I mean, how about Mars, the god of war? Surely, he's not to be 
equated with love. If you had said that Eros is love or the Cupid is the 
agent of love I could go along with that. But you're talking about the God 
of the Bible, right? He's the jealous god who claims all revenge for himself 
and who once got so pissed off at the world that he killed every living 
thing on earth, except for one pair of each kind. That just doesn't strike 
me as very loving creature at all. (Yes, my tongue is planted firmly in my 
cheek.)

Kevin said:
I sense that the reason the MOQ is silent in the areas of faith, hope and 
love has something to do with the very personal nature of these things. To 
speak about these things in the abstract will not, I fear, bring us close to 
understanding what these things are really all about...

dmb says:
I think that's probably true.

Kevin said:
The caveat is that, as a man who maintains a love relationship with Jesus, I 
may use language that would tend to inflame other people's sensibilities.  
If this becomes a problem then I'll have to bow out of the conversation.

dmb says:
As you may have noticed by now, we have different ideas about how these 
conversations should be conducted. I don't think its very important to worry 
about other people's sensibilities. I mean, my opinions are such that if I 
worried about offending or inflaming anyone, I'd never say anything at all. 
And I would urge you to never "bow out" or back off just because somebody 
has a problem with the terms you use. Having said that, however, I will tell 
you that I'm not exactly "inflamed" by your self description as "a man who 
maintains a love relationship with Jesus", but I'm not very impressed 
either. As with a great deal of what you're saying, I have no idea what that 
is supposed to mean.

Ever heard of Sam Harris? He's written a book called "The End of Faith". I 
don't quite agree with everything he says, of course, but I think he makes a 
pretty good case. He explains what we all know, that there is a cultural 
taboo against challenging people of faith. And he points out that people of 
faith tend to reinforce this taboo in their explanations and descriptions of 
that faith. Typically, a person of faith will describe their relationship 
with religion in terms of the emotional satisfaction that it supplies. 
They'll tell you that its about love and hope, that its a meaningful way for 
them to spend time with their family, that its a great source of comfort in 
times of trouble and that they have a personal, loving relationship with God 
or with Jesus. You see, instead of making assertions about the truth or 
validity of the claims made by the religion, the faithful tend to explain 
these things in such an emotional way that any attack upon the religion or 
the religious beliefs becomes a personal attack. With this in mind, Harris 
makes a case against religious moderates, not just the militants, 
fundamentalists or fanatics. The moderate might say something like, "Hey, 
I'm not saying my way is the only way" or "It doesn't really matter if the 
claims of my religion are true or not, the point is that it does me and my 
family lots of good." And the moderate secularist might say, "Well, if it 
makes you happy and helps to hold your family together, then good for you. 
I'll just look the other way and let you believe whatever you like." Harris 
points out that there is really no other area of life where people are 
allowed to avoid scrutiny and its gotta stop.

Imagine if I told you that I'm "a man who maintains a love relationship with 
Thor or Zeus"? Wouldn't you be tempted to ask me what that is supposed to 
mean? What if I told you that I believe there is a giant diamond the size of 
a refridgerator buried in my back yard, that every Sunday me and my family 
go out into the yard to hold hands and sing songs over the spot where is 
buried. What if I told you those lovely Sunday services worked to hold the 
family togeather, that we all hope for the day when we're gonna dig it up 
and have faith that then all our dreams will come true.

Is it kind and respectful to allow me to persist in these delusions simply 
because I've told you how much I need them for my emotional well being? I 
think not. I don't think anyone is served by believing unbelievable things. 
I don't think we should disregard or disrespect intellectual validity just 
because it might hurt somebody's feelings. I don't mean to be cruel, but if 
reality hurts your feelings, then you've got a pretty serious problem. I 
think that paying respect to the taboo against challenging religious beliefs 
is a lot like giving smack to a junkie. He'll love you for it in the short 
run, but you're not really doing the guy any favors. In fact, you're killing 
him.

Please, feel free to correct me.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/