[MD] Theism/epistemology

[MarshaV]

Greetings Michael,


At 02:52 PM 2/25/2009, you wrote:
> > Marsha said:
> > Obviously I failed to dispel your skepticism towards my wish for you
> > to receive an abundance of joy.
>
>MP: Obviously.
>
>
> > Marsha said:
> > I want EVERYONE to have an abundance of joy.
>
>MP: How does using negation of my joy further your professed intention of
>wishing joy to me unless you are establishing yourself as an arbiter 
>of what is
>and is not joy?
>
>You demand this joy be on *your* terms when you question the way in which
>others pursue theirs. Quoting Deuteronomy to accentuate what you see as
>"blatant contradictions" in "the Bible" seems an odd way for you to 
>wish me joy
>when you know I find my joy through a faith in the God of that Bible no?
>
>When you negate the position of others to bolster yours, you also 
>distract from
>your own message by delving into the complexities of that of others. You know
>yours very well, but you don't necessarily know others.' Your quoting
>Deuteronomy highlights the degree to which you really don't understand
>another's POV when you have decided you disagree with it. "The Bible." The
>Bible consists of many books, each with a distinct history and 
>purpose. Do you
>know what Deuteronomy is? Where in the Bible it is found? Why it is found
>there and not elsewhere? Who wrote it it? Why he he did? When he did? That it
>precedes John by some 5,000 years? That something major occurred shortly
>after John spoke those words and what that major event meant to the books of
>the Bible that preceded the event? Do you know what the New Testament
>means to the Old? Do you know what believing in Christ means to one's
>relationship to the Old Testament? Deuteronomy is no more a contradiction to
>John than Copernicus is a contradiction to Hawking.

Was there a different God in the old and new testaments?  Or has your 
god come under the spell of Darwin's evolution?  Of course it has 
because the mythos evolves.




>That you used that quote the way you did implies to me you don't know the
>answers to these questions. Yet you presume to tell *me* my flavor of joy is
>somehow illegitimate? To do so completely undermines the credibility of your
>contention that you wish an abundance of joy to me. You profess one 
>thing, but
>act contrarily. That may not have been your intention, but the 
>valuation result on
>my end of your actions is undeniable: no joy, low quality, avoid. 
>You may very
>well wish me joy, and I may in fact find it, but so far, it won't be 
>based on any
>positive contribution on your part.
>
>The unfortunate thing I see is that based on what I gather of your 
>joy so far, it
>needn't be that way.


I have given you my reasoning and point-of-view which just so happens 
to disagree with your point-of-view.   What more do you want?




> > Marsha said:
> > As for
> > 'theism' and 'God', those concepts have no meaning for me
> > personally.
>MP: Oh, no, my dear! They clearly have TREMENDOUS meaning to you. No
>matter how much you deny it, and the more you deny it, the more you show just
>how much so. By denying they have meaning to you you only avoid the
>repercussions of making an honest admission to the contrary in this context.
>Your continued participation (and instigation) of threads on theism 
>reveal just
>how important they are to you, and your avoidance of seeing the discussions
>through once they've started confirms your reticence to admit your 
>position. But
>the message, even unspoken, is clear; they *have* meaning to you. The
>problem you are faced with is while you seek to live in a world of joy, those
>terms mean something to you that is not joy. It is a problem for 
>you, that I do
>believe.

Denying something is not a basis for knowing the thing.  If I deny 
that I have green eyes, it doesn't mean I know I have green eyes.  If 
I state that I do not like the flu, it doesn't mean that the flu has 
TREMENDOUS meaning for me.  When I wish you an abundance of joy, you 
tell me 'joy' hasn't meaning for me and that it is a problem for 
me.  What kind of an argument is that Michael?




> > Marsha said:
> > I did provide a number of quotes by RMP indicating that
> > the MOQ was atheistic and anti-theistic which you choose to
> > ignore.
>MP: To the contrary. I have responded at length to a number of those quotes
>several times. Your reactions to my responses were revealing, mostly in their
>absence, but also in their negativity.

Responding at length doesn't mean you've successfully refuted the 
fact that the MOQ is atheistic and anti-theistic.



> > Marsha said:
> > I do not denigrate one approach to love over another,
>MP: Yes, you do. Else why quote Deuteronomy as you did? The contradiction
>you think you see in "the Bible" is one of your own making, and has 
>nothing to
>do with faith in Christ being a source of joy for me or not. Its all 
>about *you*
>when you take it upon yourself to attempt to undermine what works for me
>simply because it doesn't work for you, and then in a manner that reveals the
>degree to which you don't understand my joy in the slightest.
>
>I have not *ONCE* said that you (or anyone else) need to believe in 
>God to find
>joy, have I?
>
>Yet how many times have you denigrated theism? How many times have you
>gone out of your way to undermine its legitimacy as a source of joy, 
>of quality?
>How many times have you started a thread about theism by posting something
>*negative* about it? How many times have you said "Okay" accompanied by a
>negation of someone else's POV?  If joy is your goal, why so much negativity
>about anything, let alone someone else's source of joy?

I have denied that God and theism are meaningful concepts to me.  I 
have demonstrated that the MOQ, according to RMP, is atheistic and 
anti-theistic.



>My impression is that you are sincere in your desire for joy, 
>Marsha. I do think
>you believe what you say. But your words don't match your actions 
>here. I don't
>think this is intentional either. I don't know that you necessarily 
>recognize the
>degree to which what you say doesn't align with what you profess to live, and
>more so the degree to which that contradiction undermines what I sense as
>strength in your position.

I haven't professed to live by anything.  I TRY to live in the 
moment.  I wish all people an abundance of joy.  And, by the way, 
this isn't about me.  The MOQ is atheistic and anti-theistic.  Why 
cannot you accept this?

http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm



>I wish I could read you speak about your joy absent a negation of something
>else. There are plenty of atheists and antitheists here and out 
>there that have
>negation down to an art form, but have little of quality to add in 
>their destructive
>approach. I get the sense that you do. I get the sense that you have 
>something
>to offer that can be expressed without defining it in negation of 
>something else,
>and wonder why you insist on undermining your offering by resorting to doing
>so.

Well, you're making no sense to me.  I didn't state anything about my 
joy.  I did state that I wish all peoples an abundance of joy.  And I 
stated that joy wasn't dependent on god or theism.  I negate 
murder.  Does that offend you?



>I get the sense you are meticulously diligent about defining your 
>world in terms
>of joy. This is commendable. Yet are doing so in a world where there 
>are plenty
>of unjoyful things. How you confront those things and remain consistent in
>defining things through joy is a puzzle indeed. I don't envy your conundrum.
>God's been at it forever and look where we are.
>
>But lets please allow each other the space to find our joy our own way.

Meticulously diligent?   What are you talking about?   Where is this 
drama coming from?   Your comments are not making any sense to me.

Believe whatever you like, that does not convince me of anything.


Marsha




.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.