[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?

[david buchanan]

Ted, Ted and all MFers:

Ted (the music head) said:
I guess what pushed my buttons... was Harris's statement that the moderate 
secularists shouldn't  "look the other way and let you believe whatever you 
want."  Harris's  statement sounds like a call to arms - "it's gotta stop"  
- as if...we  gotta get out there ... we gotta get up off the couch and stop 
those deluded  people who are "happy & holding their families together" ... 
which is quite  different than your very agreeable assertion that everyone 
who comes on the MD to discuss
philosophy should be equally open to critique.

dmb replies:
Yea, we've gotta get up off the couch, go over to the window and shout, "I'm 
not gonna take it anymore", just like in the great movie "NETWORK". Just 
kidding. Harris is actually a very mild-mannered dude. He only says that we 
should apply "conversational pressure". The giant diamond example is his, 
but the point is not to attack people for the content of their belief so 
much as expose the ways in which the taboo against criticism is enforced in 
everyday conversations. If somebody tells us that such and such a belief has 
a postive effect on their family life, we become very reluctant to attack 
that belief. If somebody tells us that Jesus saved them from the bottle, 
we're not gonna want to take that away. In cases like that, questioning the 
actual content of those beliefs is equated with breaking up a family or 
turning someone into an alchoholic. Usually, it'll be less dramatic, like as 
an attack on happiness itself. The point Harris is making, I agree with him 
here, is that these are emotionally coersive and intellectually invailid 
forms of defense.

Ted said:
...I guess I think of all sorts of neighbors, inlaws and octagenarians for 
whom I'm quite willing to 'look the other way," if the alternative is verbal 
combat over entrenched delusions.  (If they  came to the MF, though, they'd 
be back on the hook!)

dmb says:
Well, I suppose Harris WAS thinking of the big bad world when suggested that 
we apply "conversational pressure", but I borrowed phrases like 
"intellectual scrutiny" from the english language in trying to connect his 
broader ideas to our particular situation in this forum. How much pressure 
you should apply at the family dinner table is a judgement call you'd have 
to decide for yourself, of course. For some reason I remember dinner at a 
hamburger joint with a right-wing talkshow host, his best friend and our 
three wives. The guys got into a political discussion.  I could have said 
more and been much more combative, but these guys were co-workers so I was 
relatively restrained. On the way home I starting feeling like maybe I 
should have said this or thatand complained about it to my wife. "No. You 
made your points. They heard you." It sure didn't seem like it at the time, 
but I had hundreds of conversations with that host after that and it never 
seemed like he was hearing me. But looking back at it now, I can see that he 
did. It had an effect. Or, more recently, I simply called a talk show. The 
first time, this host wasn't buying it at all. I called again and took a 
different approach. That time I was a little more persuasive and the host 
didn't dismiss it so fast. Then, two days later, it was obvious that he'd 
been persuaded. In the first case, it took years and the second case, it 
took a few weeks. This are memorable because its rare, but isn't it nice to 
know that its possible? Anyway, I'm not going to torture my grandmother on 
Thanksgiving or get into a shouting match with everyone I meet. But if the 
topic comes up in conversation, I might make a few points. I sympathize with 
you on your sister's case. That's gotta be hard. It much less personal for 
me, but as a matter of fact my brother in law's brother in law (I don't know 
what that make him to me) is in the process of recovering from being a cult 
of sorts. He's ready to be done with the whole thing, so we didn't have to 
kidnap him or deprogram him or whatever. But he's been given a place to 
stay, some room to breath and I loaned him some books. Miracle of miracles, 
in effect, he asked for some "conversational pressure", some alternative 
voices, and wants to be dissuaded from his current beliefs. But mostly I 
agree, people don't change their minds as soon as they hear a good idea. Its 
more like people grow, evolve, and take on new perspectives as that process 
unfolds. People have to be ripe for change, so to speak. I suppose that's 
when a little pressure goes a long way.

Ted asked:
What did Harris mean by the remark that "there is no other area of life 
where people are allowed to avoid scrutiny?"  Who is he referring to? Public 
figures?  Job Applicants? Other than the MF/MD, (where everyone should come 
expecting to  be critiqued,) in what context do you (or Harris?) think we 
should stop  looking away? I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

dmb replies:
I don't think that's a Harris quote, just a Harris idea. Anyway, I think he 
just means that religious beliefs are different from other sorts of beliefs 
in ways they are walled off from inspection and he's talking about people in 
general. We don't get to hold faith-based beliefs about our resumes, how our 
car works, what the laws of the nation are or anything else we deal with in 
a normal life. In terms of context, I would cite the present war in Iraq as 
a rather spectacular example of what happens when facts are ignored. If 
you've heard Joe Wilson, Paul Pillar and the author of the two "Downing 
Street memos" and others, then you know its widely believed that "the facts 
were fixed around the policy".  And its no accident that we're talking about 
the policies of a very religious dude whose favorite "philosopher" Jesus 
because, as W put it, "he changed my heart". Notice the use of that same 
emotionally manipulative defense? He credits his faith with getting him off 
the bottle and changing his heart. To challenge the content of his belief 
becomes tantamount to breaking his heart and turning him back into a boozer. 
Who wants to be responsible for that?

And just for the record, I don't have a problem with people getting help 
with addiction. And some people are so lonely, hungry and desperate that the 
church is a real life-saver. I just think that curing substance abuse 
problems is not the same thing as spirituality and that medical and 
psychological professional are more effective insofar as one doesn't end up 
trading one addiction for another.

Ted said:
I didn't take Kevin's caveat as a threat to withdraw from the MF in spite if 
we don't make unfair
exceptions for him.  I took it as an actual offer to sit out a specific 
topic.  In other words, maybe it wasn't a debate tactic as you suggest. I 
can see it more clearly in Sam's case ("Just  remove me from your recipients 
if you don't like my input, (but I'm staying  here!)" )  but I thought 
Kevin's offer might be something else...   ...Since Kevin's caveat scenario 
has not played out - why not wait &  see what happens (?) Or one could ask 
Kevin if that was his intent (to set up a future taboo
zone) and see how he responds.  If Kevin also agrees there should be no 
taboo zones, then don't you have him where you want him, in terms of debate 
tactics, and fairness on the MF/MD ?

dmb says:
OK, I asked Kevin about that caveat and openly expressed the idea that I 
could be misreading his intentions there. But then, as if to prove my point, 
Kevin responded with outrage, refused to answer any questions and expressed 
his intentions to withdraw from any further conversations with me. And Sam's 
reaction was basically a list of reasons for this same refusal. Obviously, 
he's a bit outraged too. Rather than try to explain it or answer my 
questions about it, maybe they're trying to SHOW me what it means to say 
"God is Love". ;-)

But there something else about their reactions I'd like you to notice. At 
one point Sam says, "the MoQ needs to be amended" and Kevin says, "I'm 
perfectly willing to discuss my Christian beliefs and my relationship with 
Jesus.  But I wouldn't expect that kind of discussion to shed any light on 
the MoQ. ..it isn't cogent to Pirsig's writings.." Both of these guys know 
their views aren't very compatible with the MOQ, that its gonna clash with 
the system we're here to discuss.  One of my concerns here is that, even if 
one doesn't count the churches or anything else in the brickandmortor worl, 
there are a gazillion places to discuss Christianity. But how many places 
are there for the discussion of the MOQ? Is there more than one? Two or 
three? In any case, I'm quite disturbed that TedG might not be the only one 
to get this impression...

TedG said:
"I started reading this list with the expectation that it would be about 
quality. It mostly isn't. There are a few who seem to have not only read 
Pirsig, but have some understanding of what they read. In my opinion, you 
few are wasting your time, the discussion is dominated by people with an 
agenda. The seem to want Pirsig books to support their faith or something 
similar. I ain't got time or interest to support your needs here. I hope you 
all are at least enjoying yourselves, I'm going to find something 
interesting and meaningful to spend this time on."

dmb says:
In fact, five or six months ago somebody alerted me to a kind of discussion 
group search engine for Christians. Apparently, it searches the world of 
virtual conversations for certain key terms so that Christian conversations 
can be found easily. Some of the discussion from this forum showed up there. 
If a surfer had discovered this forum through that site without knowing 
anything about Pirisg, it would have been way too easy to jump to the 
conclusion that the MOQ is some kind of Christian philosophy - rather than 
being an anti-theisitc form of philosophical mysticism. I guess it was 
around the same time when I saw that some of the members had taken to 
calling this place GOD.org. instead of MOQ.org. (off-line) You know, as a 
pointed little joke about the nature of the converstions here. My point? I'm 
pretty sure that TedG is not the only one to get the wrong impression. I 
guess the only question is how many people have been turned off or 
discouraged enough by it to avoid the place. How many potential contributors 
have been lost - or will be lost -because of this false impression? How many 
people are gonna show up WANTING and expecting a theistic philosophy? And 
how many of them can I scared away with my nastiness? There's got to be a 
limit. This is what worries me most. My capacity for cruelty is infinite and 
I very much enjoy the task, but there's only so much time in a day. How will 
I ever keep up?  ;-)

dmb

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