[MD] Theism/epistemology

[MarshaV]

At 02:51 PM 2/7/2009, you wrote:
> > 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.

Michael,

Are you trying to make me feel guilty for not playing by your 
rules?   I will not respond again to your posts.


Marsha





_____________

QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!