[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

Hi Arlo,

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark]
> MOQ should not hit a dead end because of a few individuals.
>
> [Arlo]
> On the contrary, I think the efforts of Ant and others, including Horse,
> DMB,
> Dan, Matt, Khoo...  and David Granger, and of course Ron DiSanto and Tom
> Steele
> and Henry Gurr (who I forgot to mention last time, to my chagrin), and
> Matthew
> Crawford, are doing more for enriching and evolving a Quality Metaphysics
> than
> 95% of the noise that masquerades here as "interpreting" what we know
> Pirsig
> "meant" above his own protestations otherwise.
>

[Mark]
I agree with you completely in your assessment of the contributions.  I have
not heard Pirsig's protestations so I can't address those.  As you say MOQ
is in the process of progressing.  As such, it has many branches.

>
> By definition, of course, "the MOQ" cannot hit a dead end. Evolution
> happens.
> You can't stop it. That's the theme of the MOQ. Things get better. No
> "individual" is capable of stopping this. But the greater narrative will
> move
> forward, as people respond to Pirsig's voice in the dialogue with their own
> ideas, their own thoughts about where he was right and where he was wrong.
>

[Mark]
MOQ would hit a dead end if there is a reticence to progress it.  The
concept that I have is in mainstreaming it.  To do this, bridges have to be
build to integrate other forms of understanding.  MOQ can do that, but it
takes effort.  What I read in many posts, is not that but this.  Pirsig has
very little to draw upon, which requires personal interpretation in terms of
moving forward.  Certainly a single book such as ZMM can have as many
interpretations as the bible.  Quality is described in such a book in the
form of narrative or adventure.  It was a huge bestseller for a reason when
I read it and much discussed.  Many here do not appear to have gone through
that indoctrination, and view more as a form of philosophy.

>
> DMB cannot stop you, Mark, from offering something you think is better than
> what Pirsig offered. If Bo's ideas are truly superior to Pirsig's, then
> they
> will "win out". If you think a "theistic MOQ" is superior to Pirsig's
> "anti-theistic MOQ", and people agree, then that is the path evolution will
> take.
>

[Mark]
Nobody can offer something "better" than what Pirsig has offered.  What
people like dmb seem to be offering is something different from that.  My
statement on MOQ is that being anti-theistic does not make sense.  Theism is
a relationship between an individual and his reality as much as MOQ is.  I
believe what people are against is the Christian religion, which I agree
with.  Any dogma that must be followed from a church of any sort such as the
church of reason has no place in MOQ.  It is this reasoning I am against.

>
> The only "dead end", as I see, is the continued need to validate
> "interpretation" through the lens of legitimizing authority. As long as
> "contrarians" think the best path is to "prove" Pirsig "really meant" to
> agree
> with them, even knowing that when he said otherwise he is just a
> "weak-interpreter of his own ideas", then I see the narrative forever
> stalled.
>

[Mark]
Yes I agree, there is an intrusion of legitimizing authority.  That was what
I was pointing towards.  I am glad that you stated this as well.

>
> But, sadly, we rarely see legitimate dissention here, even Bo failed and
> ran
> from the idea that he should have to demonstrate why his ideas are better
> than
> Pirsig's, instead forever trapped in arguing that his ideas ARE Pirsig's
> (Pirsig being too dumb to see this). People want to prove that "Pirsig's
> MOQ is
> theistic", as if Pirsig was too dumb to see what his ideas meant, instead
> of
> articulating why a theistic MOQ is superior to the anti-theistic MOQ
> offered by
> Pirsig.
>

[Mark]
I would have to ask you what you would consider legitimate distention.   If
you are pointing to some rules here you would like followed, I would like to
hear them, seriously.

>
> Even you, Mark, for the life of me I can't figure out where you think
> Pirsig
> was wrong, and what you are offering instead. I read your posts and I see
> you
> condemn "the old guard", but I can't see anything you offer in their place,
> let
> alone something "better". If I missed that, perhaps you can take a moment
> to
> give me the bullet points.
>

[Mark]
There are many places where the descriptions given do not fit, and as such
should not be taken literally.  For example that dynamic quality enters
before conceptualization.  This is something taken from the books of
psychology or animal behavior.  The notion that dynamic quality should not
have attributes or be described is another.  This relegates it to the world
of spiritualism which is difficult to teach.  The notion that objects
contain quality is another one that does not fit the definition of Quality.
 The relativistic nature of Quality is another.  The use of Quality to
promote political or environmental opinions is another.  Tying Quality to
the biological concept of evolution does not make much sense to me, being a
biologist.  While it may serve as an analogy, it does not comprise its
essence.  And of course the need to define MOQ as being against something is
not necessary.  I could go on, but I will leave it at that.  If you choose
to have a discussion with me I can propose other ways in which Quality
manifests.  I do not know where you are coming from, so I will have to wait
for your response.

I have always been open to a discussion on these things, and am as much an
expert on this as anybody, yourself included, and any other newcomers

Thanks for the questions.
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
>