[MD] Labels and Ostracisms

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
Since the MOQ is anti-theistic, and it opposes SOM, this statement is 
about as gross a misunderstanding of the MOQ as I've seen. But this just 
proves my point.

[John]
Really? How so?

[Arlo]
Pirsig himself says his philosophy is anti-theistic. The only way it 
could be redefined as a 'theism' is if everything, including atheism is 
defined as a theism. At that point, everything is a theism and the word 
has no meaning, since you've defined it so that everything is, ipso 
facto, "theism".

I am not going to repeat this argument that has appeared here numerous 
times. It's all in the archives.

[Mark]
I think the point is, what kind of message are you sending with this 
anti-theistic movement that is any different from the rest of modern 
philosophy?

[Arlo]
I am not sending an anti-theistic message, Pirsig is.

[Mark]
Perhaps you are viewing theism at arms length as a static dogma.

[Arlo]
Right, here's where the redefinition to force the label comes in, just 
as I mentioned. I am not interested in redefining "theism" so that you 
get to keep a label you appear so vehemently stuck to. Pirsig described 
his philosophy as "anti-theistic", if that offends you, or if you have 
to twist around a whole lot of definitions just so that you can call his 
philosophy theistic, then you're just proving my earlier analogy.

As I said to John, I have no interest in pursuing this argument. Been 
there. Done that. But thanks for proving my point. Appreciate that.