[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

Hi Ron,

[Ron previously]
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]
I do understand what Quality is trying to do, honestly.  I arrived at such
an interpretation before Lila came out.  Lila is an attempt at a structured
approach, which is why there is so much confusion.  As suggested in ZMM,
there is a perceived allocation of Truth being a divine interpretation in
Western thought.  Quality proposes an alternative.  I am also aware of the
pitfalls of the Church of Reason.  Being a scientist, I can see those most
clearly.  I have no faith in Scientism, but see it as a structure that is
built with the human mind.  If MOQ is attempting to subscribe at some Truth
of its own, then it will also fall prey to the notion of an Absolute.

[Ron previously]
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]
The shift from true to better also implies a Truth of some kind.  It is
difficult to get away from this in any interpretation.  To say that some
things are better than others is also creating a truth.  The shift in
paradigm offered by MOQ requires an assortment of paths.  If it were
required to destroy one's mind, as happened to Phadreus (which is, as the
author states a factual story), then most would not achieve such an
interpretation.  It is well recognized that Phaedrus (Pirsig) subscribed to
destructive methods, such a thing is related in ZMM.  As a wolf, he was on
the attack.  Any final interpretation of Quality must be arrived at
personally and not as some philosophical result.  By introducing the term
anti-theist this is typical of the tactics of a wolf.  A wolf that found
himself all alone.

[Ron previously]
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]
I am far from a materialist view, but your post would suggest that you are
not.  While not being theistic, one cannot help but realize that such a
thing is not materialistic.  The approach to unity is as old as human
reasoning.  This is a product of the human mind. To dismiss this as an
argument would dismiss human capability for such a thing.  If we attribute
experience to Quality, this is no different.  I understand the need to make
MOQ somehow different, perhaps irrational.  Let me say that this method,
while attractive, will not provide much following.  I am not a believer in
God, per se, but to distinguish Quality as something different requires a
jump of some kind.  The appropriate platform for such a jump must be
constructed.  One cannot subscribe to something intuitive without methods.
 To provide meaning to Quality, analogies are required.  The use of
anti-analogies is not a useful method.


> [Ron previously]
> Snipped again to streamline, since experience is the startingpoint it's
> both
> between and with.
>

[Mark]
Experience is translated for the creation of shared experience.  No two
experiences can be demonstrated to be the same.  The value of experience can
only be agreed on in a rational way if philosophy is needed.  There is
certainly a preponderance of experience that is shared in non-verbal and
even in ways beyond measurement, at least for now.  Agreement with is very
different from agreement between.

>
> [Ron previously]
> 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]
Exactly.  MOQ is presented more as what is not true.  There is no root to
meaning, it is something we create.  Meaning does not exist outside the
human mind.  MOQ as meaningful is a personal interpretation, its aims are
personal.  I am reminding scientists all the time about the drawbacks of
misinterpreting what we create as being absolute.  Any theory or scientific
truth has no meaning outside our agreement.  It is a cohesive force is in
the beehive of humanity.  MOQ can easily turn on itself and create its own
paradox.  This comes from ascribing truth to it, rather than suggestion.

>
> [Ron previously]
> 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".
>

[Mark]
Yes, this is at the core of many new age interpretations.  To claim that it
is different from theism is to miss the point of theism.  One cannot
objectify the premise of theism as many seem to try to do.  To be
anti-theist is as much nonsense as being anti-MOQ.

[Ron previously]

> 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.
>

[Mark]
It would seem to me here, Ron, that you do not have a good interpretations
of MOQ.  If it relies entirely on a personal interpretation of betterness,
then there is nothing to write about.  If economy is the purpose, then
theism trumps MOQ anytime.

>
> [Ron previously]

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.
>

[Mark]
Yes, exactly, which is why Lila may not work as a philosophy.  It would
appear that you agree with me on that one.

Thanks for the discussion,
Mark

>
>
>
> 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
>