[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

Arlo,



> 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.
>
>
I've argued strenuously that the MoQ is entirely beyond the context of mere
theism or antitheism.  The MoQ is what you use to see if your theism is any
good or not.  How could itself be theistic then? According to the MoQ,
Value is fundamental, not God.



> 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".


>From my perspective, Mark has been arguing against a dogmatic interpretation
by an "old guard" squelching all debate or interpretation.  Against the very
common formulation of blindly worshipping the sq interpreters of the past.
That's his main theme, that I've seen.  And one in which I heartily concur.
For the MoQ is at its heart, open and evolutionary, not dogmatic and
doctrinaire.

John