[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your post, below.  Let me first say that I do not have an axe to
grind.  By stating that MOQ is anti-theist or atheist, I see the appearance
of an axe, and this is what I am warning against.  This kind of throw away
comment (MOQ is anti-thiest), which seems intent more on provoking than
describing MOQ, does nothing to forward the efforts of MOQ.  It certainly
appeals to those who believe that basing ones beliefs on empiricism somehow
makes them "right".  The experience of a god is also empirical by
definition.  I don't want to split hairs here, and I simply state that the
premise of anti-theism is not rational.

As you say, MOQ is meant to be empirical.  What is and is not empirical
depends on agreement within those ascribing to the philosophy.  The notion
that dynamic quality enters into our senses in a pre-conceptual manner is a
theory that needs more substance.  The empiricism that this subscribes
appears to currently be based on thought experiments.  While this is
appropriate, such statements need empirical proof.  I will be starting a new
subject exploring this.  Of course this enters into the vast field of
psychology since it deals with how the brain works.  The end result is
agreement between, not agreement with.

In terms of the relevance to Pirsig's philosophy, we can disagree on that.
 As a scientist, I see the pure metaphysical approach as not complete.  We
can project these ideas of Quality, and describe all we see within the model
of Quality, but there needs to be some grounding in accepted experiences and
other disciplines.  In today's world saying that something is true requires
more effort since we are indoctrinated to "know" more.  Bridging into those
other ways of thinking is indeed appropriate.

Again, I do not see the concept of anti-theism as being relevant, and is
somewhat destructive.  It sets up artificial intuitive road blocks.  One
could easily interpret Quality as being a personal guide in this existence.
 Such a thing is theistic and does not challenge MOQ, in my opinion.  One
could also view Quality as some benign indifference impinging on us.  That,
however, would separate us from Quality and make it objective.

Mark

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:39 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Mark,
> You seem to be linking atheism with a-theology.
> MoQ is certainly theological but it's methods
> are not theistic. It's methods are certainly empirical.
>
> Some here often appear as defending DQ in much
> the same way as a religeos dogmatist would
> defend God simply because their explanations,
> their reasons why, often seem underdeveloped
> past Pirsig quotes and say-so.
>
> I think you have made this point clear, but pushing past
> this point is beginning to enter into critical points of
> view that really have little or no application to Pirsigs
> concepts about a metaphysics of Quality and quickly
> enters into the prospect of your own axes to grind.
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
> 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
>