[MD] re Ham

[Fam. Kintziger-Karaca]

greetz , Ham
> Mr Pirsig did never oppose to religion, and states it clearly,
> that the moq is not rejecting it.

Can you point me to a quote in which Pirsig states that the MoQ is NOT 
antitheist?  I've seen several that state he is.

Comment adrie
well, read copleston annotations or his work.
mind this , Mr Pirsig has the right of freedom of speech, i assume, and so have i.

Both zam and lila, are literary pearls on philosophy, mr Pirsig is a PHILOSOPHER.


Adrie
> Not in his optic[?], but in mine solely, i do not disapprove
> your search, i think this is of value for you.
> But i do not accept it to be projected towards me.
Ham
The question is: Is it a value for YOU?  If not, there is no point in 
pursuing it.
- No , there is no point in this issue for me.
 
Adrie


> Is a word [such] as Quality an indecent proposal towards
> the creator if we are asking for this item?
> Is it allowable to ask that quality is in the basic toolset
> of the creator? or was it always present?
> then the creator was responding to quality...........

Ham

You tell me, Adrie.  It sounds like you're putting Quality before the 
Creator.  That doesn't make for a logical ontogeny.  From an epistemological 
standpoint, does it make sense to say that quality exists before there is a 
sensible agent to realize it?



Adrie
okay , in a way its fair i think, that i reflect on this question.

no time for typing , but this link is about what i am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Einstein was an agnost ,Huxley,DARWIN (on the origin of species by means of natural selection)

personally, i reject sartre's being and nothingness
nothingness is a hole in a hole.
so if i answer your last question,...i'm of my pattern; and i am a very strong agnost.

try Pirsig and the moq, on copleston and the annotations
as in this cut/copy
With its emphasis on the spiritual character of ultimate reality and on the relation between the finite spirit and infinite Spirit idealism stood for a religious outlook as against materialistic positivism and the tendency of empiricism in general to by-pass religious problems or to leave room, at best for a somewhat vague agnosticism. The MOQ is an atheistic religious outlook that solves rather than bypasses religious problems.  Indeed, a good deal of the popularity of idealism was due to the conviction that it stood firmly on the side of religion. To be sure, with Bradley, the greatest of the British idealists, the concept of God passed into that of the Absolute, and religion was depicted as a level of consciousness which is surpassed in metaphysical philosophy, while McTaggart, the Cambridge idealist, was an atheist. The MOQ agrees with both. But with the earlier idealists the religious motive was much in evidence, and idealism seemed to be the natural home of those who were concerned with preserving a religious outlook in face of the threatening incursions of agnostics, positivists and materialists.

 The MOQ resolves this conflict and thus takes both sides. 



So, Try to carry your own Cautauqua's towards your audience is not an indecent proposal , i think.
so i am closing this issue, we can talk about other things , the world is full of options.
greetz, adrie