[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Michael Poloukhine]

On 14 Feb 2009 at 2:47, moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org wrote:

> Bo before:
> > > I have tried in vain to get what Michael "thesis" is.
> 
> MP:
> > That could be because I haven't really got one. ;-) But if I had
> to ... 
> 
> Bo: You trailed off , and so do I, I'll wait until the buzz subsides.
> Right  now you act like a  silent movie hero fencing left and right. 
> 
MP: ?? The comment following the trail off had a trail *on* which noted the 
following comment would explain things. I've reproduce it below. The last three 
paragraphs provide you what you request.

However, to be clear... I'm not here with a preconceived notion and something 
to prove. I don't have a pre-determined thesis which I am seeking to defend. I 
am here with some ideas, beliefs and thoughts, to be sure. I am reacting to 
some things I read here which fly in the face of what I have come to understand 
about some of the those things.  But I am here with a desire to expand my 
understanding, not defend it. The very idea of "having a thesis" is contrary to 
that process, its a static position seeking to defend itself. In contrast, while I 
hold certain beliefs and have certain ideas and thoughts which are relatively 
static, and as such less apt to easily change than some others, I am here to 
expand on them, even if it means they change from what they were. I don't 
understand that to be a "thesis" approach. 

But, FWIW, the last three paragraphs are where I was at the time:

> > Bo said
> > I have tried in vain to get what Michael "thesis" is.
> MP: That could be because I haven't really got one. ;-) But if I had to ...
> 
> > Bo said
> > [MoQ] is neither a-theist nor anti-theist, it just encompasses everything. 
> > Religions are static social patterns. 
> > The "semitic" type religions that is. The Eastern Tradition has 
> > transcended social (faith) and intellectual (skepticism) and 
> > reached some Quality like insight.      
> MP: ... I'd say its in there somewhere. 
> 
> Where you make the distinction of "Western" and "Eastern" you and many
> here also automatically appear to make a like and respectively associated 
> distinction of "Theistic" and "Non-theistic." But I know from personal (Eastern 
> theistic) experience this is not an inherent or inextricable connection of 
> West/Theistic or Eastern/Non-theistic, but only a historically and culturally 
> coincidental one. 
> 
> Theism is not incapable of the same transcendence of social and intellectual
> on 
> the personal esoteric level you rightly attribute to Eastern faiths; I and those 
> who taught me and practice my particular faith are living proof. I am the first to 
> admit its the rare case in Western (or even Eastern) theistic manifestations,
> but 
> it is *not* impossible. It is in my opinion *culture* which drives / has driven this 
> particular aspect of most theistic beliefs, rather than it having been a direct 
> attribute of their theistic nature. 
> 
> Relating this then to the MoQ, it is my opinion, that while the MoQ is not
>  theistic 
> in nature, this is not to say that anti-theism is a quality direction in MoQ terms. 
> MoQ, as a view of reality, is anti-theistic primarily in the sense that it explains 
> *all* of reality (essential and mystical) in one common systemic language. It 
> alleviates theism of being the primary experience in explaining the mystical. 
> 
> But that said it simply *does not follow* that this means theism cannot remain
> (and I 
> dare say be cultivated to be) a force for high quality, or more so that its 
> elimination would be somehow be a high quality direction for society or
> culture to value.


MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."