[MD] a-theism and atheism

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[John]
I've argued strenuously that the MoQ is entirely beyond the context of mere
theism or antitheism.  

[Arlo]
And such an argument is legitimate and you have every opportunity to make the
case for your ideas. Just like Bo had every opportunity to make the case of why
his Intellect=SOL was better than Pirsig's Intellect!=SOL.

[John]
>From my perspective, Mark has been arguing against a dogmatic interpretation by
an "old guard" squelching all debate or interpretation.  

[Arlo]
I have never seen evidence of this, and if someone could provide it to back up
these sorts of allegations, that would be nice. 

But its one thing to just chant "be open to new ideas" and make accusations
that certain people are not, and its another to actually propose a new idea.
I've asked, where does he disagree with Pirsig, and what does he offer instead?

You see, I think instead this is all mired by "interpretation", and I do think
this is driven an incessant need to be "in agreement" with Pirsig, or at least
not actively say "he was wrong". So there is all this bending over backwards
and twisting and ignoring and rhetorical games to "prove" that Pirsig "really
meant" to say "what I want him to have said".

Joe: The sky is blue.
Jane: Joe thinks the sky is red.
Joe: I just said it was blue.
Jane: Its valid to interpret your words as meaning the sky is red.
Joe: But I do not think that.
Jane: That's because you are too dumb to know what you think, I know better
than you do what your ideas are.

All that to avoid this.

Joe: The sky is blue.
Jane: No, you are wrong, its red, and here is why.

I see DMB (and myself, and Horse, and likely everyone meant as the "old guard")
condemning the former but encouraging the latter. 

[John]
Against the very common formulation of blindly worshipping the sq interpreters
of the past.

[Arlo]
With DMB, I find such allegations inane, and nothing more than rhetorical
pandering. 

[John]
For the MoQ is at its heart, open and evolutionary, not dogmatic and
doctrinaire.

[Arlo]
"The MOQ" is words in a book. All metaphysics evolve by synthesis, analysis and
evaluation, a narrative process founded on dissent and re-articulation. But to
that end one must be more concerned with responding to what someone said,
rather than proving your "interpretation" is what they really "meant to say".