[MD] apologies

[Bennett Jon]

Andre,

I rarely read your posts, and even more rarely, respond. But I will accept
your apology and break my rule. Although, its a good practice when
apologizing not to explain or defend your position, or make further
accusations.

I am a theist and a Christian without apology, and it is a part of all I do
and all I am, and certainly my thought. So when I enter a room or a
conversation Christ enters with me. And that, I imagine, is the reason you
have twice now tried to shoo me out.

As to the relevance of theism to quality, Pirsig clearly gives quality
creative ability. He attributes many other Divine aspects to quality as
well. I have not discussed this ad infinitum, I've been on the list for one
week now.

And I want to look more clearly at just what qualifies a belief as a
theistic belief. For I believe we all have them, even you.

Pirsig and his moq are dealing with the history of thought particularly in
the West. And it is inconceivable to have a meaningful, intelligent, or
accurate discussion of this subject by leaving out one of its two main
pillars, Christian theism.

I totally agree with Pirsig about the need for a "new" paradigm, or
metaphysics. I've known this a long time. I just think what he is offering
is not new and will lead to disastrous consequences.

Historically speaking the world views in the west from the end of the17
century forward have been:Christian Theism, the Enlightenment, and
Romanticism. And the last could be subdivided or elaborated a bit.

As I mentioned somewhere back there I was considering a book entitled, Zen,
The Cross and Motorcycle Maintenance to illustrate these 3 views. I think I
will go with something like The Cross, The Clock and The Circle.

I think the Cross answers the questions and problems Pirsig raises better
than moq. And I know no one has discussed Herman Dooyeweerd on this list ad
infinitum.

But if you will be civil and patience, I think you will see that some of the
very issues you constantly discuss on this list have been given a more
serious and profound answer by Dooyeweerd's philosophy. He has a much more
sophisticated view of the levels and of the ego as it reflects on them, and
of the problems with som and sol, and substance.

I just don't see why you are so threatened by ideas you disagree with. If
you think they have no value, ignore them.

I do wish you the best and appreciate your apology, whether it was directed
at me or not.

Jon





On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>wrote:

> All,
>
> I apologise for my temper tantrum of yesterday. It was uncalled for and MOQ
> discuss unworthy. Low quality indeed.
>
> What motivated me was the so-maniest attempt by someone to bring 'god' and
> 'creator' into the MOQ as a discussion topic.The MOQ rejects 'god', or, for
> that matter any form of theism. This has been discussed ad infinitum. Pirsig
> is very clear on this because of the static representations and, yes John,
> your dreaded 'connotations' with this concept. When discussing Quality it is
> best to leave all concepts out of it. The 'god' and 'creator' bit: ditto.
> Arlo (and others) has argued countless times of the dangers and fallacy of
> this Qualigod conception.
>
> God and Quality are incompatible.
>
> Sincerely
> Andre
> 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
>