[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

dmb:

I think you have it backwards. Pirsig didn't says Ant and I "are the two
> foremost philosophers today on the MOQ and it's implications" for social
> reasons and he's not talking about my social qualities. My argument has
> never been that I'm his favorite or that being so favored would make me
> right. That's just silly. But he wrote the books and he thinks Ant and I
> understand them as well as anyone. I've also been studying around it full
> time in grad school for years and my grades couldn't be higher. If that
> doesn't count as evidence of some intellectual credibility, what in the
> world would count as evidence?



Simple empirical evidence of your own intellectual quality by posting words
that make sense.  And by this, I mean your own words, dave.  Not posting
quotes of W. James or Pirsig or other people who we all recognize as being
of high-quality intellect, but YOUR original and creative thinking.

That would count as evidence.  Not your grades, which, after all can be
simply  parroting what the professor wants to hear.

Evidence would include openess and willingness to construe fairly, and an
evolving understanding that moves in a positive direction, rather than
relying upon a static conferral of approval into the absolute future.



> Pirsig's opinion and my grade point average are not based on the fact that
> I give good back-rubs and it doesn't come from schmoozing either. It's based
> on what I write. And that's all we have to go on here.
>

Writing.  There's the rub, dave.  Good writing is the key. I certainly don't
know how to define it, but I certainly know it when I see it.

I'm still waiting for some from you.  Meanwhile, I've experienced a lot on
this forum - good writing that is, from Krimel, Dan, Matt and Andre and
Platt and many many others and not only do you not quite match their efforts
(that's ok, neither do I) but you completely disparage them and their
efforts BECAUSE they are in disagreement with you on some point or the
other.  It's that blindness to quality that I find the most damning.  That's
what I term "social over intellectual" because it finds more value in
damning one's opponents in dialogue because they are opponents, even when
they offer quality thought and expression.

Intellectual excellence accedes a point now and then.



> And that was the main point in posting the quote from Pirsig. He sees the
> very same thing you see; my writings on the MOQ. And yet your conclusions
> couldn't be further from his.


Yes, this is a puzzle to me too.  Royce's philosophy of Loyalty cleared up
some of this conundrum for me, and I've got my own pet psychological
theories to supplement.



> It couldn't be further from the people who grade my papers either. Wouldn't
> a reasonable person ask himself why fails to see what they see?


Well, I'm a reasonable person, and obviously I have asked myself many
times.  But sometimes it's just the simplicity of a very stupid (socially)
person who notices that the emporer isn't wearing any clothes.   Someone too
stupid to understand the social ramifications of disagreeing with all the
experts.


> I'm not expert on humility, obviously, but how can you imagine that you are
> in a better position to judge than they are? That's not just a lack of
> humility, that's downright delusional. Speaking of which....
>
>

btw, accusing an Idealist of "delusion" is akin to accusing a clown of being
silly -  It's all delusion in the end. The question is whether our delusion
is any good or not.  Whether it gets us somewhere.  Or are you going to
argue for an absolute reality outside of our conceptions?  Have you read
James or are you just good at parroting?


>
> John said:
>
> ... I've posted a perfectly legitimate intellectual challenge to the
> validity of "a brief history of time" and it's underlying metaphysical
> assumptions and have I received a single answer or refutation of my
> arguments?  Nope.  All we get is, "well, he's more famous and brilliant than
> you, so shut up."  Is that what you consider an intellectual argument dave?
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Do you really not understand how crazy that sounds?
>
> I hate to break it to you but (In a whisper) you're not even a physicist,
> dude.



And out loud, neither are you.  Obviously.



> You simply haven't done the work to be in that club and if you think you
> can rival Hawking before getting the credentials or working a single day in
> the field, then you really are delusional.



dave, dave dave.  I'm not a physicist, I'm a philosopher.  They ain't the
same thing and I don't attack Hawking on physics, I attack him on
metaphysics.  If you think you can defend him, a guy who says that
"philosophy is dead", then you're the delusional one there, bucko.

But by all means, go ahead and give it your best shot.  Explain to me how
one can postulate the age of the universe and if you can't, then justify to
me how this kludge can be transmitted to the masses via schoolbooks and
Discovery Channel.

Your loyal opposition,

John