Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

John Beasley Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:51:31 -0700

ÿş<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hullo Wim,</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for the material on Quakers. What came through very clearly to me was the strong desire to leave the field free for the dynamic to emerge, and the recognition that both the experience and the language in which it is described will change from generation to generation. This is, of course, another problem with writing metaphysics, in that the language itself becomes a static trap over time.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I had hoped that there would have been more detail on how the dynamic is discerned. What did emerge was</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.    the final decision is communal rather than individual (contrary to Pirsig)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.    there is a commitment from the group to stay with the process until a decision is reached</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.    there is a willingness of individuals to offer their input and allow it to be used or discarded in the process</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.    while a simple majority does not assure a decision, unanimity is also not required.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The test of this process to me would be an issue that divides the group almost equally, with no quick resolution possible. Has this happened?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How does this process deal with contrarians, whose decisions are regularly at variance with the group? (Lila was supposed to be a contrarian.)</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Interestingly, I was talking on the phone with my brother last night, who belongs to an organisation called Sea of Faith, a sort of religious afterglow which retains faith in faith itself, and very little else. It is a growing organisation in the UK, NZ and Australia, and is currently looking at a way to develop a national structure that does not become an orthodoxy or dogma itself. I read him some of your quotes and he is very interested. I have faxed him the material.]</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I would like to explore more fully is how individuals discern quality, for example in ideas or politics or art. Wilber has recently said that 'everyone is right', or some such, and this I quite understand. I would translate this to mean that the quality that I can discern at a given point in time is limited by my development at that time. As I develop so what is quality to me will vary. The question I have is how do I choose from among an infinite set of possibilities those which will lead to the greatest potential for improved quality. If one takes Wilber's point to be that our experience of quality is an unfolding, how is it that so few achieve excellence? In a finite world, how do I know in advance of experience which paths lead to increased quality and which are dead ends? There are simply thousands of paths on offer; how do I discern those that might save me from those that are degenerate? This is Pirsig's question about discriminating the saviours from the degenerates posed as an existential choice. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John B</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

Re: MD Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ

Reply via email to