[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Jos]
> Stimulating yes, but damaging to the status quo nonetheless. 

If something is a stimulating improvement to the culture but damaging to the status quo, too bad for the status quo.  It's called progress.

[Jos] 
> 1) Attempting to state what is good is futile, when we recognise that a full 
> definition defies static explanation. 
> 2) Good is dynamic 
> 3) The absolute nature of static patterns (if that is even a valid concept) 
> are not visible to us, they are described by language in terms of shared 
> analogies, it is unlikely that these analogies are "accurate" 
> representations of the underlying paterns. 

Jos,
Your argument has now become even weaker.
1) assumes that we cannot state what is good without having a full definiton.  In ZMM Pirsig states several things that are good even in the absense of a definition.
2) Is nothing static, good???
3) If the language, its descriptions & its definitions are working well enough for shared communication, why do we need these invisible absolute underlying static patterns, which we can't ever have anyway, to play a role?
Craig