[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[david buchanan]

Mark said to dmb:
I am curious, if you don't mind me asking, why do you find it of value to divide into camps of theist and non-theist?


dmb says:

I do mind your asking that question. It's not even a question. It's an accusation. I don't find value in divided camp. What I do value is clarity and coherence, excellence in thought and speech. In this case, the distinction between theism and atheism is not tribal. It's conceptual.


Mark said:
What is meant by being "beyond" theism.  Beyond in what way?  If age is a measure, is sophism something which we are beyond?


dmb says:

Anti-theism is "beyond" atheism in the sense that it is a stronger position, an active stance in opposition to theism. Atheism is relatively passive. It only describes a position in negative terms, in terms of what it ain't. And age is not the issue. It's foolish to dismiss anything simply because it's old. But there is such a thing as obsolescence, irrelevance, growth and development. 


Mark said:
...I believe you are stating that MOQ is not based on a set of beliefs.  What would you consider the premises that are used in MOQ, such as the existence of Quality?  If you state this is the rational conclusions as a result of the appearance of things in your mind, you still must start with some premise or another to base such rationality on.  If you believe in nothing, then why are you supporting MOQ?


dmb says:

Believe in nothing? Huh? 
The MOQ is a form of radical empiricism and Quality is the primary empirical reality. Experience is the starting point and the most basic premise is that experience and reality amount to the same thing. 

Mark said:
Just some questions, I am patient.  I simply seek some rational clarification.  If you want to bring quotes in, fine, just discuss them afterwards in your own words, I can read quotes as well as you, but perhaps I interpret them differently.

dmb says:
Well, I already did that. That's what you're responding to. I offered an explanation of the MOQ's position with respect to theism and mysticism and I used quotes to support and further clarify that explanation. If you really were seeking clarification, you would have asked questions that were far more specific and sincere. 

How can a reasonable person interpret things so "differently" that a simple declarative sentence like "the MOQ is atheistic" could be construed to mean that the MOQ is not atheistic. How can a reasonable person conclude that Pirsig's view could be compatible with anything that he's described as an "evil social suppression"? That's pretty strong strong language, you know, not just some little hint. A reasonable interpreter would not and could not miss that. Are these among the quotes you interpret "differently"? You have my sympathy Mark, but I see no reason to give you credit as a thinker or a reader. Quite the opposite.