[MD] new blog

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> I'm reacting that if you want this mystical esotericism, theism
> (g*d) 
> is necessarily going to be part of it.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Ah, well then this is the root of our disagreement. And I'd say its
> one of the pernicious fallacies arising out of mainstream Occidental
> religion. Rather than seeing "God" as one face painted on the mural
> of the Mythos, it tries to move "God" back and conflate the image 
> with the Void.
MP: I don't see that theism (with g*d as subject) does that. It doesn't pretend its 
the only way to see the void any more than any other "way" claims. In practice it 
may do this more often than not, but then we are back to semantics (which IMO 
are crucial in this case) about the use of the word "theism" and back into 
"what's the right kind of orgasm."


> [Michael]
> Then I'd wager he was wrong.
> 
> [Arlo]
> This is kind of a tangential topic, but if Pirsig was wrong in 
> thinking that a cultural shift to a MOQ view would not change how 
> humanity "operates", then what's the point?
MP.  Good question. I'd see it as giving humanity a place to take the first step 
once its ready to take it, not as changing humanity. Its like MoQ is laying the 
groundwork for a shift that has to happen in its own time. But there will *always* 
be a bell curve, IMO.


> 
> [Michael]
> Man, the *optimist* in me says no. You don't want to know what the
> cynic in me thinks about it.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Brother, I hear you. ...
> a decline (to get back to Pirsig) I think can be firmly traced to a
> post-60's regression into entrenched SOM (Pirsig's words indicate 
> this as well).
MP: Couldn't agree more.