[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[118]

Hi Ham,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and standing your ground in an
intelligent way.

[Dan]:

> Religion is a coming together. The MOQ is anti-theistic, not
> atheistic. Theism is the belief in a supernatural power, be it God,
> Allah, Jehovah... whatever. The MOQ is empirical.  It does not
> subscribe to supernatural solutions. Neither does the MOQ
> denouce religion, however.
>

[Ham]
The MOQ may be empirical in approach -- but radically so, as it does not
acknowledge
the objective reality of traditional empiricism.  Again, you and dmb dismiss
the fact that Pirsig referred to his own philosophy as "atheistic" and
denounced religion in general.

How do you define "supernatural"?  If it means "transcending nature", then I
submit that metaphysics itself is supernatural by default.  The author had
no use for metaphysics because it was "nothing but definitions", and a
definition would reduce his concept to a static pattern.  Perhaps he
declined to posit DQ as the primary source because he wanted to avoid a
"supernatural connotation" for this otherwise ineffable force.  Then again,
perhaps we shall never know.

I'm sorry you disagree with my fundamentals, Dan.  But thank you for the
kind response.

[Mark]
Ham, I'm sure you recognize that there are some in this forum that seem to
think that MOQ is more than it is.  Possibly they haven't thought the whole
thing through, or perhaps this is the only philosophy they know.
 Regardless, their elevation of MOQ to some Godly stature is not consistent
with my readings of Pirsig.  Somehow it is tabu to even talk about Quality,
talk about Theism!  No, we can't do that, it would simply demean, it is not
reverent children.

I believe the fear of religion, which comes from lack of understanding is
what governs this.  Some perceive religion to be somewhat weak or mindless,
but in truth those that truly subscribe to religion must be much stronger
than those who subscribe to simple logic is the sum total of their stay
here.  Using simple logic, of course religion doesn't work.  What that means
is that some have additional faculties that are missing from the simpletons.
 It is their loss, they can rail against it all they want, but they won't
get there using math.  Just look at all the great thinkers that were
religious.  Those in this forum (myself included) do not even come close to
them.  But, as always, history teaches us nothing.

Cheers,
Mark