[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

[Mark says, again]
The argument you are making below, dmb, is exactly what I am pointing at.  I
have engaged in discussion with you, but your argument always reverts back
to one of irrational dismissal.  Recently I praised a post of yours, in
effect I agreed with you.  I think you are on the right path in some cases.
 This textual evidence that you refer to is, by your own admission an
intellectualization of a vast dynamic reality.  If you point to such a thing
as Truth, then you haven't understood the underlying premise of Quality.
 Quality arrises through discussion, not by quoting static dogma.  You
dismiss things as being childish, when Pirsig himself talks about reverting
to child awareness.

You are projecting a stagnant view of MOQ, which is simply static and rigid.
 If you have some discussion which will help me understand where you are
coming from, this would be most welcome.  If what you want to do is stand
there and hold your breath until you turn blue, that is fine too.  Your
choice.

You seem to be fighting against any kind of dynamic quality by posting old
quotes which you state are immutable and self evident.  This is not
philosophy as you present it, it is some kind of religion.  I don't think it
is fruitful, to use your words, it is fully ripened and on the point of
going bad.  If you want to try to preserve it in vinegar that is your choice
as well, but it is contrary to MOQ.

Regards,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> John said:
>  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.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I don't believe that for one second. I don't think you can you cite any
> examples of this debate squelching or blind worship. These accusations are
> so vague that they could be thrown at anyone who has an opinion or point of
> view about anything.
> Isn't it true that debate squelchers and blind worshipers are those who
> maintain their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary? And isn't
> that exactly what you're doing when you make these accusations? If I'm
> presenting the textual evidence and you are ignoring it or using it
> selectively in order to maintain your position, then surely you are being
> the dogmatist. And these accusations are just a way of discrediting the use
> of evidence as some kind of closed-minded and oppressive tactic. That, sir,
> is completely ridiculous and preposterous, by which I mean it is
> ass-backwards and it's mere ridicule. Frankly, I think this complaint is so
> stupid and so childish that it doesn't really deserve a response, but there
> it is anyway.
> 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
>