[MD] Theism/epistemology

[MarshaV]

At 09:28 AM 2/7/2009, you wrote:
> > At 08:46 AM 2/7/2009, you wrote:
> > >Hi Marsha,
> > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > A reminder:
> > > >
> > > > "The MOQ is an atheistic religious outlook that solves rather than
> > > > bypasses religious problems."
> > > >
> > > > "The selling out of intellectual truth to the social icons of
> > > > organized religion is seen by the MOQ as an evil act."
> > > >
> > > > "The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is completely
> > > > dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and
> > > > Dynamic freedom.   The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard.  It
> > > > is anti-theistic. "
> > > >
> > > >      (RMP, Copleston)
> > >
> > >On the other hand:
> > >
> > >"Finally, though it may be argued that a metaphysics that incorporates
> > a
> > >central term that isn't defined (i.e. Dynamic Quality) isn't a real
> > >metaphysics, it can also be argued that the strength of the MOQ is its
> > >ability to incorporate the indeterminate divine within a coherent and
> > >logical paradigm."
> > >
> > >Letter to Bodvar Skutvik
> > > >From Robert M Pirsig, September 15, 2000
> >
> > Hi Platt,
> >
> > I don't understand what you are getting at.  Does that make selling
> > out an intellectual truth to the social icons of organized religion
> > greater than an evil act?
> >
> >
> > Marsha
>
>Hi Marsha,
>
>Don't know what is "greater than an evil act." What I'm getting at is that
>unlike SOM, the MOQ includes the divine, defined in Merriam-Webster as:
>"1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god."
>
>Unless, of course, Pirsig meant something else in his letter to Bo.

Platt,

Since RMP in various statements has suggested that the MOQ is not 
just atheistic, but anti-theistic, I think he might mean something 
else.  In my definitions of 'divine', #8 "of superhuman or surpassing 
excellence: Beauty is divine."  Maybe that is what he meant.


Marsha



_____________

QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!