[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[118]

Hi Arlo,
Divining does not require theism.  I have dropped the theism part since as
you know this is a continual thread since its introduction in Copplestone
(sp?).  As such it obviously has many interpretations otherwise people would
not spend the time talking about it.

Your ideas which you state have germinated, is what I am asking for
discussion on.  Pirsig's ideas as you state seem to leave an interpretation
of DQ up to us.  What is your interpretation of DQ in your own words.  I
have used my own words throughout.  As such, we are discussing who's
interpretation has more quality, again a personal stance.  You can provide
me with your interpretation or simply argue against mine.  The former has
more Value.

Thanks,
Mark

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark]
> It is not my intention to fight and certainly I expressed that in my post.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well I took your use of "divined" and scare quotes around "mistake" to be
> fightin' words. Sorry if that was in error.
>
> [Mark]
> While you do not bend over backwards to prove what Pirsig meant, you do
> have a personal interpretation of what it is.
>
> [Arlo]
> No, I do not. I have personal ideas that germinate from Pirsig's words, but
> I clearly know what he said and what I am saying in return. This is not an
> "interpretation" of his words, it is agreement/refutation.
>
> [Mark]
> This is why I state that if dmb has THE interpretation, he should post it
> for the rest of us.
>
> [Arlo]
> Clearly I do not think there is a "THE" anything. There are Pirsig's ideas
> and there are mine, yours, etc. It is not "an interpretation" of the MOQ to
> claim it is theistic, it is a disagreement with Pirsig's ideas. As I said,
> when Pirsig wrote "The MOQ says..." he was using a narrative device to avoid
> saying "I, Robert Pirsig, say...". As such, when I read "THE MOQ", I read
> "Robert Pirsig's ideas".
>
> This is not to say that ONLY Pirsig's ideas are relevant. This is why I
> prefer "A MOQ", as it separates out your and my ideas from Pirsig's.
>
> Example. It is not "an interpretation of the One True MOQ" to claim it is
> theistic. Pirsig's MOQ is, as he says, anti-theistic. YOUR MOQ, or rather
> your ideas that may derive from Pirsig, is a MOQ that is theistic. Instead
> of wasting time claiming which "interpretation" is right, you can argue why
> your ideas are better. And, I'll add that "interpretation" leaves the door
> open from anything and everything that anyone wants to say Pirsig meant is
> equally valid. "Hey, its my interpretation that the MOQ is pro-pedophilia.
> What? Well, my interpretation is just as valid as yours. Pirsig said
> otherwise? Well, he is just a weak interpreter of his ideas and can be
> discounted, you 'in the box apostle' you".
>
> 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
>