[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

Arlo,


> [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.
>


John:

You call me to task Arlo, and that's a good thing.  "squelching" is the
wrong term.  It implies some kind of physical force or imposition, and
that's not the case.  What I meant was something that's entirely
rhetorically dismissive and derogatory, and since that can flow both ways,
there's no real physical squelching by one party over the other.

Social disaprobation, then, can be a form of squelching, but only if one
buys into it.  And if one does (and I have) then is that really a force
applied by others?  Or a choice I make myself?  I'd say it's a choice I make
myself.  But then, I'm human, and it's what humans normally do.  We pay
attention to the social signals we consider significant.  I consider dmb's
opinions significant, by my own choice and thus I accuse him of squelching
debate, which is blaming him for my choices and unfair.

As expiation, I sent him an early christmas present.  Fair enough?

Arlo:


> 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".
>
>
John:

Yes, I see what you mean.  I think the debate ought to center around what is
good, and leave Pirsig's opinions behind.  By analogy, his words were the
rocket launching pad and the MoQ is a rocket  but rockets weren't meant to
stay on the pad. they're meant to blast off and get somewhere.

Arlo:


>
> I see DMB (and myself, and Horse, and likely everyone meant as the "old
> guard")
> condemning the former but encouraging the latter.
>
>
John:  I guess poking around the archives a bit, as I've been doing today,
has made me feel a bit more oldish guardish myself, and I agree with the
point too.  So what I mean to say is, I take it all back.



> [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".
>
>
John:

Ok, now I'm gonna argue  a bit.  goody.  "Words in a book", Arlo?  Even a
novel is more than "words in a book" and a metaphysics is much more than
that  (talk about reductionist)   I agree that metaphysics evolve and
involve a narrative process and that's a very important clue as to how it is
more than words in a book.

 But I think the MoQ stands out quite a bit in fact, from the normal
development of most metaphysical systems, which are usually highly technical
conversations or reactions placed in academic systems.  Kant being awakened
from his dogmatic slumbers, poked as it were, by fellow high-climbers.  The
MoQ stands outside that mainstream, to an extent, don't you think?  It arose
from a more basically personal introspection, and has had a development and
evolution that is more communal in nature.   Which i think is a very cool
thing, btw.  And overall, I'm done bitching and moaning.  I'm gonna try and
be more positive in the future.

Happy John