[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

Happy Turkey day, Arlo,

[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)
>
> [Arlo]
> Well I was reacting with my personal dislike of the term "The MOQ". I am
> more
> okay with "Quality-ism" or something that covers the different responses
> and
> recontextualizations of Pirsig's seminal ideas. "The MOQ" makes it sound
> like
> there is One MOQ out there and our "job" is to evolve it. I've used the
> analogy
> with Bo that there is this One True MOQ out there and he and Pirsig and I
> and
> Ant are just groping around trying to interpret "The MOQ". I don't think
> this
> is a good way of thinking about this.
>

John:

This doesn't give me the same headache that it gives you, but I do see your
point.

Arlo:


>
> Of course the field of inquiry we are all part of is more than words in a
> book,
> in the same way "Pragmatism" or "Radical Empiricism" is more than words in
> a
> book. The are living, evolving narrative of analogies responding to
> experience.
>
>
John:

Right on.  Which is why I don't have much problem with "the moq" as a
shortcut handle conceptualization of an ongoing process.  Like "the american
dream" its a handle that's impossible to pin down exactly, but it means
enough to us that we can communicate.



> [John]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> I understand there is a lot of "those damned interlictials" going on, all
> these
> stoopid perfessers and their commie ideas mucking up the world for freedom
> loving free thinkers.


John:

This is a rather glib dismissal of criticism, and you revert to it often
enough that I'm gonna challenge you on it, Arlo.  For one thing, it takes a
view of the critique of the academy that is awfully condescending.  Nobody
thinks professors are stupid and nobody around here has offered up such
extreme inanity as you "profess".

Here the label for what you oppose is quite aptly called "strawman" because
the picture you portray of some overalled goombah with a John Deere cap has
a literal straw in his mouth. "Hayseed", in other words.  You profess an
appreciation for "Shopcraft as SoulCraft"; do you claim the author of that
book to be railing against "stoopid commie perfessers"?  So not all
criticism of the academy fits into your narrow straw-sucker picture.

Arlo:



> And while there are valid criticisms of the Academy,
>


John:

Right!  So why revert by default to always assuming and attacking the
invalid ones?

You hayseed attacker you.


Arlo


there is a reason why the enormity of historical philosophical dialogue
> occurred within its halls. Even in the Buddhist tradition, scholarly
> discipline
> was held within "walls" where the history of the dialogue could be seen,
> examined and debated. The "walls" are a necessary immune system that keeps
> out
> viruses and parasitic patterns. Yes, like any immune system it can function
> too
> tightly, no one would say otherwise.
>
>
John:

At this point in time, I'd say the functions of the  Academy are largely
beside the point.  The point is that we're moving away from a literate
society - one that champions words and interpretations of words - to an
image based society that champions celebrity and fashions.  In that context,
I'm just as much an advocate of the academy as you or any of your peers.

So my point was not a criticism of Acerdemics, as you hastily jumped to
conclude, but emphasizing the difference between the normal academic
development of a metaphysical system and the somewhat populace-oriented MoQ
with it's basis as a couple of novels and a lot of internet-enabled
dialogue.

Arlo:


> But to demonize the immune system is to champion cancer. When the body can
> longer distinguish between viruses and harmless (or helpful) organisms, it
> quickly dies. The Academy built its immune system because of the extreme
> risks
> and cancer offered by the social patterns whose control it had to overcome.
> It
> HAD to ensure that The Church could not "squelch" Copernicus' ideas, and it
> has
> been under relentless assault from social power ever since.
>
>
> John:  Well, I agree with your reading of the historical roots of the
academic antipathy toward religion, but the way I see it now, is that this
antipathy is a community-building technique known as "enemy formation"
wherein group cohesiveness is ensured through a sort of us vs. them
mentality that is focused upon the wrong enemy.    The enemy of the academy
is no longer the pulpit.  The enemy of the academy is Nickleodean and
Discovery.

Happy feasting,


John