[MF] MOQ and theism

[ian glendinning]

Hi Kevin, (Sam, Maggie, Scott, Ant and Bono mentioned too)

I see I was mentioned in Ant's response, despite my initial flippant reply.

I still find it possible to have sensible debate with the likes of Sam
and Maggie about what a theists belief actually means. The fact that
such sensible people support the concept means it's imperative to
reconcile any differences - even if they turn out to be purely
lingusitic.

Your question was
> The question that I ponder is,
> is the Quality of
> Pirsig's MoQ in any way like a
> theist's God?

I say. "In any way like" is a good start. Means we can avoid
accidental pedantry about the words we choose. True to the original
"ineffability" intended by use of the woprd "quality".

I'm a spiritual person. I believe spirit is natural (ie not
supernatural). In the widest sense explicable by "physics" (or nature,
if you prefer). But you all knew that.

The debate I'm having with Scott about "proto-consciousness" (which
Scott calls simply "consciousness") is about what this thing called
"quality" actually is and whether it has attributes of consciousness.
(Or more precisely, which attributes of consciousness it has and which
it doesn't.)

The point I part ways with some theists (and other mysterians), is in
the kinds of attributes we attribute to this thing we're taling about,
not what we call it.

I see it as a "proto-consciousness" - something consciousness-like in
so far as it is the existence of "detectable significant differences"
- interactions between things - "quality" in this MoQ context (Or
"information" some prefer. The concepts of significance and semiosis,
I suspect are at the heart of the debate with Scott.)

The attributes I do not attribute to this "proto-consciousness" is any
higher order aspects of consciousness like, intelligence, intent,
purpose, any decision making beyond the natural result of "laws of
nature" (physics for short, if the word doesn't offend). The
evolutionary nature of MoQ supports the idea that a higher order idea
like "intellect" required some significant evolution from more
primitive natures. (Ant and I and most of the pan-Darwinist ZMM / Lila
/ MoQ would seem to agree on this.)

A deity with these latter attributes is just too supernatural for me
(ie beyond the MoQ - the best working model of nature in my book), if
it is claimed that it pre-exists (all of) "nature". A deity which
simply represents the "wonder of nature (and all it's laws and
workings)" is fine by me. Then all we have is a discussion about what
a (sensible) deist really means when he or she uses his or her deity
in a sentence as the subject of an active (transient or intransient,
non-passive) verb. A linguistic issue.

The problem facing the world is all the non-sensible deists claiming
literal active, purposeful involvement of their chosen deity. I
include al-Qaeda, George Bush, U2 and ID-Creationists in that, so it's
not merely a small linguistic problem :-)

(I'm a big fan of U2 by the way - just a small private joke with Sam -
Bono may turn out to be on the Sam / Maggie side of this line, but he
doesn't correspond enough on MoQ-Discuss for me to assess that. There
are clues that he too is a "sensible" unlike those other idiots.)

Ian

On 12/23/05, Kevin Perez <juan825diego at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you Anthony.
>
> Sounds like the indeterminate nature of Dynamic
> Quality counters the determinate
> nature of Northrop's "divine being."  And the "has no
> personality" nature of
> Dynamic Quality counters the "belief that God is a
> person" nature of my theism.
> Which leaves the "immediately apprehended" nature of
> Dynamic Quality and the "is
> present in the world" nature of my theism.
>
> Two out of three ain't bad.
>
> Seriously though, 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.  I'm an engineer so I know what it means
> to be accused of having no
> personality.
>
> The question that I ponder is, is the Quality of
> Pirsig's MoQ in any way like a
> theist's God?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Kevin Perez
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
> To: <moq_focus at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:54 PM
> Subject: [MF] MOQ and theism
>
>
> > Firstly, just a quick note of clarification.
> >
> > The Copleston annotations are an entirely separate
> text from my MOQ Textbook
> > though the latter might use quotes from the former.
> >
> > Secondly, Dynamic Quality as used in the MOQ is
> non-theistic as it's
> > indeterminate, has no personality, and is
> immediately apprehended if using
> > Northrop's (1947, p.375) definition of 'theism' i.e.
> a belief in an immortal
> > "divine being with [inferred] determinate
> characteristics."
> >
> > Therefore, as Ian G correctly stated, there is no
> theism in the MOQ (at
> > least in the above understanding of the term).
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Anthony.
...