[MD] a-theism and atheism

[X Acto]

Mark:
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".

Ron:
Isnipped that comment like this because I feel it reveals the general
meaning of what you are trying to say.

The term "anti-theistic" is a deliberately proking term. 

I think it's a proking term to those who hold certain beliefs.
Questioning your values is often very provokative.

Mark:.  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.

Ron:
Rationalism seems to want to call it something it seeks unity.
while the empriricists seeks the plural, the many in explanations.

The MoQist would discuss what makes one better than the other.

Mark:
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.  

Ron:
That statement leads me to believe that you are taking a materialists point
of view. Empirical, from my own understanding, is explanation predicated
on experience.
Typically, attributing experience to any one thing in particular, is a 
rationalist
arguement, they seek to explain the flux of experience with unity, one.

there is a difference an important one, it's an old arguement.

Socrates, Aristotle, James all have written about it and it often is considered
the central theme of philosophy.

Mark:
 The end result is
agreement between, not agreement with.

Ron:
Snipped again to streamline, since experience is the startingpoint it's both
between and with.

Mark:
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.

Ron:
What exactly is MoQ saying is true? that it is better to inquire?
MoQ is basically a reminder to scientists, exposing the root
meaning , rexamination of it's aims.

Mark:
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.

Ron:
Although it is and can be interpreted in this way, it seems not in line
with the authors original intent. 

certainly those are examples of possible interpretations but they seldom
link together with the overall themes of Pirsigs work in any kind of cohesive
continuose whole.

Understand, once Quality is objectified, worshipped and taken for 
holy writ, as the one true guide, it becomes rationalistic, it seeks to
explain life in terms of one unity., Pirsig is saying in so many words
that MoQ is not Rationalistic.

It boils down to the prefference between terms "God" as the most basic
general expression of experience or "Quality".

God, as said before requires a radical shift in meaning whereas "Quality"
meets the needs of economic explanation. Everyone knows quality.
everyone knows betterness. 

The point being, that if it works for you to associate God with Quality
and it may be viewd in this way without having all the static baggage
associated with the term, then thats a metaphysics of Quality for you.
But
Understand that its not Robert Pirsigs metaphysics of quality.

Understand then, anti-theistic comes to be linked with anti rationalism.
and it's that rationalist value, that is provoking the difference of opinion.
It does throw up intuitive problems for someone who favors rationalistic
explanations.