Something I posted to the MoQ discussion group earlier today.

[Ian Glendinning] challenged me to be more forthcoming about what I believe. My long posts last month in the ‘What it means to believe in the orthodox Christian God’ are part of an answer, but I suspect what you are after is some positive description of how I integrate the MoQ with my Christian understandings. So herewith a ‘Christian interpretation’ of the MoQ; an ‘interpretation’ because the MoQ as it stands is clearly non-Christian, indeed some parts are anti-Christian. However, I am comfortable that those bits can be amended (‘interpreted’) with a result which is still recognisably the MoQ, but which is compatible with Christianity, as I understand it.

So firstly I’ll sketch out how I understand the levels, and where they correspond with traditional Christian language. I’ll also say something about the nature of religious belief, concentrating on Wittgenstein’s notion of ‘grammar’, and I’ll say something about your understanding of theism. I’ll conclude with some very speculative points about the Trinity. I’ll try to be as bold and clear as possible, but with the caveat that this is very much a ‘work in progress’ as my thoughts are still evolving. It should answer what you need, though (I hope).

How I understand the levels:

– basic ‘engineering’ of how the levels work, I’m not aware of having any differences, as set out in my eudaimonic paper. So acceptance of patterns of value, ‘machine language interface’, “natural selection” (with quibbles about the word ‘natural’) etc etc

– level one, inorganic, no difference to standard MoQ (Christian language might call it ‘dust’);

– level two, biological, no difference to standard MoQ (Christian language might call it ‘the flesh’);

– level three, social, probably some distinct differences. I see the social realm as being a) the realm of language, in the Wittgensteinian sense, and b) the realm of group desires (in a Girardian sense, which I haven’t talked much about here). I think it is what Christian language refers to as ‘the world’; it’s also the realm of the ‘ego’, the ego being the agglomeration of social patterns which respond to the social pressures (eg flattery produces pride which encourages social cohesion). It is the realm of ‘other people’s desires’;

– level four, what I have called eudaimonic, major differences from the standard understanding of the MoQ, which you’re familiar with. Christian language would call this the level of the ‘soul’. I see this as the arena of ‘autonomous judgement’, by which I mean it is not conditioned by the social patterns. I see the ego (social patterns) as the ‘machine language interface’ between levels 3 and 4. I see the extent to which that ego becomes transparent to Quality as a) the expression/ salvation of ‘soul’, and b) the development of ‘freedom’ (I accept Pirsig’s account of free will, which I think is essentially a restatement of Augustine). This is not a discrete level, in that the ‘top’ is open to Quality in a way the others are not (pragmatically, not theoretically). I think the language of Christian mysticism maps comfortably onto this understanding, ie the soul needs to be stripped bare of all the level 2 and level 3 influences, at which point it becomes ‘transparent’ to God (quality), achieves union with God, expresses the nature of God etc.

Now, a bit more about religious language. What I often ‘rail’ about, concerning the misunderstandings of Christianity, is that the grammar of religious faith is misunderstood. That is, religious language does not function in the way that scientific language functions, and to construe religious language as making scientific claims is to necessarily misinterpret it.

Scientific language grew out of Christian language (the shrub before the tree) but has incorporated certain mistakes _within_Christian_theology_ . In other words, the mistake about the grammar of religious language happened first within Christianity itself, and has been contained within the development of science on what might be called a ‘genetic’ basis.

I would characterise the difference like this: the ‘grammar’ of scientific discourse is abstract; the ‘grammar’ of religious discourse is ‘thick’ or ‘concrete’. By which I mean that the claims which science makes (*claims*) are for independence from social context. Whereas I see religious language as necessarily bound up with social context, they can’t be understood apart from the social context, and, to a very great extent, they are concerned with the structuring and maintenance of the social order. Religious language gains its meaning from its use in the various local language games that make up the practice of religious faith. It is less concerned with correct external reference than with the orientation of behaviour, and therefore life. However, pursuing that latter necessarily involves some external reference, but it’s not the primary source or motivation for religious language (as it is for scientific language). This religious language can be oriented in three ways: suppression of level 2 patterns, maintenance of level 3 patterns, and enabling of level 4 patterns. I think different religions can be evaluated on the basis of how well they do these three things.

Moreover, religious language is necessarily mythological, ie narrative based. As you know I don’t accept the scientific claims for being independent of social context; what I think has happened is that one mythology (rich and religious) has been replaced by another mythology (thin and ‘scientific’) – which is actually responsible for the ills which Pirsig diagnoses. Any language which overcomes those ills is necessarily religious and mythological.

So religious language is necessarily, limited, local and partial. Yet I would also insist that it is possible to discriminate between religious languages and determine which are better and which worse. Which is what I think gave rise to level 4 in the first place, as discussed in my eudaimonia paper. I think that the different religious languages can be assessed by their contribution to human flourishing, or, more generally, by their Quality.

Level 4 I see as necessarily wordless. This is a corollary of the private language argument that I mentioned, from Wittgenstein, which demonstrates that language is necessarily shareable, ie it is a social level phenomenon. This doesn’t mean that it can’t be used for higher purposes, what it does mean, I think, is that it cannot escape being level 3. In the same way that agriculture can be a biological phenomenon organised by the social level, I think that many languages (eg science and mathematics) are level 3 phenomena organised by level 4 understandings. Language cannot encapsulate level 4, for this reason. Hence, ‘the finger pointing at the moon’.

I see level 4 as being fundamentally oriented from the virtues; the virtues being those static patterns which enable resistance to social pressures (honesty and integrity etc – what the Sophists were teaching, originally). I see the various intellectual patterns like SOM, mathematics, Aristotelean logic – but also theatre, art, film, poetry (especially poetry) – as being the fruits of those virtues. Those virtues I think are the sinews of the soul; the soul being simply a level 4 pattern, more or less open to Quality (= salvation?).

The God question. I see Quality as one of the names of God, as final and accurate as calling God Father or Rock (no more, no less). I think it has advantages in terms of healing the breach between science and faith, I think it has consequent disadvantages in terms of actually living out the consequences of pursuing Quality. So in general terms I see no conflict between MoQ and belief in God, on this score.

You describe God as “a purposeful, willful, intentional, transcendent “intelligent” causal entity”. Firstly, God is not an entity. Hang on to the point I made before about God never being a member of a class. We know what an entity is – God is not one. Here we come up against ‘the limits of language’, in that no language can capture what the word ‘God’ refers to (which might suggest that construing the word ‘God’ on the model of reference is likely to mislead..) Now I’m not clear on where the modifiers, once you’ve let go of ‘entity’, are different between Quality and God, if at all. I’ll think further about this point and come back to it.

Finally some more specific things about intepreting Christianity using the language of the MoQ.

Jesus I see as someone who was wholly open to Quality, in such a way that everything he did expressed that Quality. He did this without breaking any of the social level patterns which had formed him (Pirsig’s point that you don’t need to destroy to transcend). This is what Christians mean when they talk about him being ‘without sin’.

The crucifixion is the conflict between level 3 and level 4 (and absolutely essential for understanding the claims of Christianity).

The resurrection a demonstration that the destruction of level 2 by level 3 makes no impact on level 4.

The Eucharist is the level 3 rite which reaffirms the establishment of level 4 (through crucifixion and resurrection), and provides the most important virtues for the growth of level 4 in a person (food for the soul).

I think there are some ways to correlate the language of the Trinity with the MoQ ‘Trinity’ of Quality – SQ – DQ, ie that ‘Quality’ is God the Father, SQ is God the Son (the visible form, fully expressing all four levels); DQ is the Spirit. We are to be so caught up in DQ that we become wholly open to Quality and thereby come to resemble Jesus in expressing SQ on all the levels. And they are all the same, ie our eventual end is to become identical with Quality, indistinguishable from it.

The mystical path I see as the cultivation of level 4. That’s what I see Christianity as all about.

I see the language of ‘immediate experience’ as the importation of a level 3 mythology (the social respectability of ’empiricism’, and all the fruits following from it) to function as a ‘pseudo-level 4’, that is, the pursuit of a ‘mystical experience’ is delusional (anti-mystical) and tied up with the ‘thin’ social practices associated with scientific influence. I think it is precisely a social pattern. I think the ‘orthodox’ account of level 4 as intellectual is a perpetuation of Platonic mythology, resulting in a form of gnosticism (a correct understanding provides salvation) – this is where the MoQ as presently constituted tries to replace religion, and is what lies behind my ‘cult’ allegation. (Tho’ let’s be clear, I only think there are a handful of people who actually DO let the MoQ function as a religion. They’re the most Platonist interpreters).

I see the mystical as the cultivation of wisdom. Hence the emphasis on honesty etc as the foundation for what comes later.

I think there are lots of other things that could be said, but that’s probably enough for now. I hope that gives you a much clearer idea of ‘where I’m coming from’.

Regards
Sam
“I don’t want them to believe me, I just want them to think.” – Marshall McLuhan