[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> To what end? Any answer is irrelevant to my point and only feeds
> into your 
> incessant attempts to deflect from my as of yet un-answered
> critique. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Nice try. To this end. YOU claim your position DOES NOT reduce all
> ideas to
> faith. I ask NAME ONE that you feel DOES NOT require faith. You
> won't answer
> for the obvious reason.

MP: Jeezum Cro Arlo. I have already affirmed your nihilistic position has merit, 
why do you keep at it? But if it helps you drop it, here; 

I cannot name a single position that does not require faith in some way. 

What you fail to grasp is that it is irrelevant to my point which uses a very 
specific definition of faith AND self defeating as a defense of what you said 
about Leprechauns, God and Quality, to wit;

If you insist on nihilisticly reducing faith to the point of its losing all meaning 
relative to belief you only re-inforce my initial point about you arrogant claims 
about Quality. You refuse to accept God or Leprechauns, yet insist on holding a 
position that Quality is somehow more valid because one needs faith to hold 
God or Leprechauns where one does not for Quality. Yet your nihilistic 
deconstruction of faith renders your own position about Quality equally invalid. 
In your nihilistic reduction of faith, *all* positions be they science or 
Leprechauns require faith. As such, I was right; you have no place to affirm that 
Quality is any more valid than Leprechaunism, as they are both based on faith, 
and as such all entirely a subjective choice to believe in one thing or another as 
being true, valid or even real.

Its a completely pointless line of reasoning. You can take it, but it only proves 
me right that you are just being subjectively arrogant to discount Leprechauns 
over Quality.

What you also completely (and self-servingly) ignore is that I have been making 
a point about faith and Quality using a specific definition of faith. I have been 
upfront about the definition and it is a commonly accepted one; "affirmation 
absent proof."  Your nihilistic reduction of faith is to redefine the meaning by 
taking "proof" and defining it as also dependant on faith. The net result is a 
meaningless self-referential definition. But that's just using smoke and mirrors 
to avoid the point I make behind the word. Its a linguistic trick you either fail to 
see for the trick it is, or hoped I'd miss. Doing so does not render my point 
invalid, it just avoids the point entirely and implies you can't address my point. 
But what's worse for you is that, as I have shown, it does so in a way that is 
completely self defeating  as far as your claims about Quality and Leprechauns 
are concerned.

Its a dead end. A stalemate. My point is (only apparently) rendered invalid, but 
then so are any you might make to counter it.  Intellectual armageddon through 
the destruction of meaning.

I rather think we can let that whole line of thinking be an example of pointless 
waste of intellect and move on, yes?


Assuming so... then *you* still have a question to answer *me.*

I have been up front about using the word "faith" and with a specific meaning:

"affirmation absent proof" 

So with *this* definition of faith, prove my initial statement wrong that it takes 
faith to affirm Quality. Prove to me that a rock is a rock for the same reason a 
dog lays down in the sun; because of Quality. Show me the objective rational 
measure of Quality you use to affirm it.

If you can, you are not affirming the same Quality as Pirsig. 

Pirsig is quite clear that Quality cannot be defined. If you can't define something 
you can't prove it. To prove something is to define it. If you affirm something you 
cannot define, you are affirming something you cannot prove, it is an 
"affirmation absent proof." 

Faith.

If you can't see this, then I really have to say I'm done. 

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