[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[MarshaV]

Sorry for interrupting, but equating theism and religion is a mistake, 
and you did say mistakes would be challenged. - m




On Mar 8, 2010, at 4:36 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Sweet, sweet, John,
> 
> You've switched terms.  Theism and religion are not equivalent terms.  The
> MoQ supports an atheistic religious point-of-view, Buddhism for instance, but 
> RMP has stated clearly that the MoQ is not just atheistic with regards to the 
> term 'God', but is anti-theistic.  In the Copleston Annotations, RMP has gone
> so far as to state:  "The MOQ is an atheistic religious outlook that solves rather 
> than bypasses religious problems."
> 
> 
> Marsha  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 8, 2010, at 1:26 AM, John Carl wrote:
> 
>> David,
>> 
>> 
>>> dmb replies sarcastically:
>>> 
>>> Oh, yea. I know exactly what you mean. When people only vaguely recall a
>>> story that I love, it's just devastating. Sometimes I mope around for days
>>> when people don't recall the details about the things I love. And this
>>> memory lapse reveals their true nature of course, as a person who doesn't
>>> believe in good, as a person who doesn't "get it". Sigh. What's wrong with
>>> people? Why can't they obsessively cling to the things I love? I mean, if I
>>> love it and they don't, well obviously that means there is something wrong
>>> with them.
>>> 
>>> For example, people who choose vanilla when they could've had chocolate
>>> ought to be shot. How dare they!
>>> 
>>> And the nonsense just keeps gets deeper, doesn't it? Good advice for guys
>>> stuck in holes: Stop digging.
>>> 
>>> 
>> I agree completely.  Please clarify for me before I address your implied
>> concerns whether this is a confession or an accusation.
>> 
>> I don't want to make THAT mistake again.
>> 
>> But seriously, I honestly feel that every time I get in a debate with you,
>> you come to a certain point and then close down.  There's no resolution to
>> scores of arguments I've proposed and there's no continuation to completion
>> any dialogue we've had.
>> 
>> It's discouraging to me, and even you must admit there must be something
>> wrong.
>> 
>> I understand you are under time pressures and other pressures and it's sorta
>> facile for me to judge, laying back in my broken down shack with all the
>> time in the world to be annoying.  I admit, it's hardly fair.  But I don't
>> spend hours thinking up stuff to say, or figuring out the correctness of my
>> position, I just state my case as logically as I can in the moment, and
>> invite you to do the same.  No need to overthink, if either one of us makes
>> a mistake there's only a bazillion sharp-eyed critics constantly watching
>> over our shoulders, keen to offer correction.
>> 
>> Just take a deep breath, and I'll carefully explicate my position as of this
>> moment -
>> 
>> Your own James admits the value of variety of religious experiences.  The
>> fact that I've found value for myself personally, in a juxtapositioned
>> meta-christianity and the MoQ, why is that bad?
>> 
>> To my mind, all religions evolve for the needs of men.  Pirsig offers an
>> argument for a pre-existing good which is creative of these differing
>> analogies, and understanding the metaphysical existence of this good, does
>> not trap us in any particular religion.  Nay, it sets us free to enter into
>> religious play.
>> 
>> The idea of religious play within a context of a Quality metaphysics, seems
>> so offensive to you that you can't be objective.  It seems you take your own
>> religious views of atheism so fundamentally, that you don't allow any other
>> game.
>> 
>> That's projection on my part.  How accurate, you'd have to tell me.  But the
>> primary essense of my assertion, that the MoQ is a unification of science
>> AND religion, and that both are EQUALLY patterns of value, then why can't a
>> theist also be an MoQist?
>> 
>> 
>> Explain this rationally to me please.
>> 
>> if you're so busy earning the right to be a philosopher, that you can't
>> philosophize, then that IS a pathetic spectacle.
>> 
>> And it saddens me we had to see it, on the air.  Tonight.
>> 
>> John from his deepening, deepening whole
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___