[MD] a-theism and atheism

[david buchanan]

Arlo said to Mark:
 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.  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.


dmb says:
Thanks again, Arlo. 
Am I being too harsh or are you being too nice. I mean, Mark isn't the only poster who seems to be confused about the difference between social level authority and intellectual authority. Nobody has any power over anybody else here. That's logistically impossible and so the whole complaint strikes me as quite ridiculous. It's not even worthy of a response. Intellectual authorities have nothing but the power of persuasion and it only works on reasonable, open-minded people who are willing to listen. They only have authority to the extent that their efforts can be trusted by people who actually understand what they're saying. Experts are only going to be valuable to those who have a basic respect for things like relevant evidence, sound reasoning, clarity of expression and all the other things that would add to intellectual quality. And that's exactly what it takes for the dialogue to move forward. These are not rules or laws so much as they're standards of taste and excellence. And it would be ideal if these standards pervaded the whole atmosphere wherever and whenever this sort of game is being played. 

And yet we have a whole crew that seem to actively disrespect and despise any kind of intellectual authority or expertise. Did you count the number of times that Steven Hawking was dumped on? I think anti-intellectualism is a very common attitude generally, but in a philosophy discussion group? In this context, it strikes me as bizarre. And when you don't buy what they're selling, it has to be a matter of authoritarian oppression. The MAN is keepin' 'em down, they think. It can't about about their quality of their own thought and speech because it's always that other guy's fault. 

Oh, the drama.