[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?
david buchanan
dmbuchanan at hotmail.com
Sun Feb 26 13:31:56 PST 2006
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
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
More information about the Moq_Focus
mailing list