[MD] Pantheism as Seen by the MOQ

[John Carl]

[Arlo]
> I base my assessment of his "reasons" on his continued willful ignorance, a
> stance reiterated every time he posts that sophomoric "oops". But yes, the
> quote Platt provided is an attack on THE PREDOMINANT WESTERN CULTURAL SOM
> ROOTS
> OF OUR SOCIETY, which includes quite heavily the Occidental tradition, NOT
> "pantheism". Indeed, the isolation and disconnect Pirsig laments is laid at
> the
> feet of the eternally "removed" subject from a distant and always separate
> "objective reality. Hardly pantheism. But he is so needy to beat his drum,
> he
> misses the obvious.
>
>
John:

Well, I thought different, Arlo.  But perhaps you are right on this one.



> [Arlo]
> Context, John. Context. You chimed in to support Platt's characterization
> of
> emergence theories as "oops".


John:

I'm not a big fan of emergence theories as explanatory of "why" we are here.
 That's for sure.  But I do remember chiming in that I greatly valued your
"aha".



> If you were responding to Charles Barkley, I
> would've responded the same way. My point was that you admitted, cheerily,
> to
> be willfully ignorant about theories of emergence. So you didn't "say"
> anything
> so much as support Platt's willfully ignorant position by offering your
> own,
> admittedly, willfully ignorant support. What's a person to do?
>
>
John:  I definitely agree that my ignorance of of emergence theories is
cheerful.  I'm not so sure it's willful.   How willful?   For instance, if
somebody wanted real bad to explain it to me, I wouldn't stick my fingers in
my ears.  But on the surface, it doesn't attract me to trying to dig into it
on my own.  It seems to me an attempt to explain the unexplainable by virtue
of randomness.  Even if it's true, I'm not attracted to the idea.
 Admittedly, that's not a real noble holding of the truth ideal, but hey,
that's me.

And if you want to call that willful ignorance...  I'll concede the point.



>
> [Platt chimes in]
> Pantheism is the religion of SOM science which, as the quoted passage makes
> clear, is responsible for the belief that man's "whole life is that of an
> animal that lives and thinks like any other animal."
>
> [Arlo]
> I don't know which is worse, your understanding of "pantheism" or your
> understanding of "science". Either way, stop killing angels with this
> nonsense.
> The "religion" of "SOM science" (to use that analogy) is "objectivism".
> Pantheism is a view of complete interconnectedness, which by this very
> definition is the opposite of S/O science.
>

John:  Well I don't know what the true definition of anything is, but I know
what I like.  And  I do like your formulation of Pantheism better than
Platt's.

Especially with Wiki support.

Honestly, I thought Platt's post pertained more to pushing the Pirsig
philosophy upon the populist pantheism promulgated in Avatar, and evidently
I read him all wrong in that.

Arlo 1; John 0.



[Platt continues]
> The MOQ doesn't support such a warped view.
>
> [Arlo]
> You are right, the MOQ argues against objectivist thinking, the view that
> "man"
> is forever "apart" from the cold, remote world. Thank "god" for that!
>
> Just for fun I looked up "pantheism" on Wikipedia, and was interested in
> finding this comment.
>
> "Taoism is the only major religion existing today with an arguably
> pantheistic
> view." (Wikipedia)
>
> Since Pirsig has linked Quality with the Tao, this is worth considering.


John:

Worth more than a mere "considering" imo, more like worth a whole dang
conclusion.

Doesn't the MoQ refer to Nature as the source of Value?  I seem to recall
that in the Coppleston paper.

And even if it doesn't, this Deep Ecology afficianado sure does.

Thanks Arlo, for not calling me an idiot, even when I am one.

John