[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Michael Poloukhine]

> Marsha
> Would you like to discuss the MOQ, which does not accept a god or
> theism
MP: I am interested in exploring the otherwise uncontested contention you and 
some others hold that MoQ cannot accept even g*d or th*ism, notably where 
Pirsig indicates it can the "indeterminant divine."

A mathematician strips a formula of constants, replacing them with variables, 
necessarily eliminating the prior form's *value*, but by no means rendering it 
non-existent for having done so. The very act of stripping it of value in this 
manner actually infuses it with greater meaning, makes it more applicable, 
broadens its reach and enables discovery of greater implications that would 
have otherwise gone unnoticed without the conversion to variables.

This is all I am seeking to explore when I ask that theism be understood as 
th*ism, God or god as g*d. I am seeking to explore the reach of Pirsig's 
"indeterminant divine" in a cultural context where MoQ has not (and IMO 
necessarily cannot be expected to) have a strong cultural acceptance or 
foothold by looking to its MoQ evolutionary precursor for a means of extending 
that meaningfully into MoQ on its non-MoQ level.

While MoQ'ers may believe that MoQ has no place for God, god or even g*d, it 
is not a very practical means of evolution even if infallible. The first human to 
have the intellectual DQ spark that led to society would not have been worth her 
weight in salt had she refused to work with those who hadn't yet had such a 
spark. I'd wager she interacted with them in ways that led them to innately 
recognize the worth of her DQ event rather than present them with a "my way or 
the highway" ultimatum.