[MD] Moving On

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
When I say "religious", I am referring to the dogmatic dictatorial leadership of something like the Christian Church. ... In terms of theism.  I personally do not have a problem with that word since it implies knowing of that which cannot be defined.

[Arlo]
Hi Mark, okay, knowing how you use these terms helps. I sometimes hear this distinction referred to as 'religion-spirituality', which brings me to what you may have answered, do you find any difference between 'theistic' and 'spiritual'? Can one be 'spiritual' without being 'theistic'? Can I ask if you'd read Pirsig's use of the term "spiritual rationality" to be akin to "theistic rationality"? 

I'm harping on this a bit because, as I understand the terms, this seems to conflate two concepts I typically separate. That is, to me 'theism' points to the definition, where 'spirituality' points to the undefined. This is one reason I consider Buddhism a non-theism, and I think most Buddhists use the terms this way too. And further down I hold religion to be the social manifestation of power, not even necessarily a 'defined'. So I'd consider Aquinas a theistic author, Pat Robertson a religious author, Thich Nhat Hanh a non-theistic author, and Joseph Campbell (along with Pirsig) an anti-theistic author. Of course by anti-theistic I am specifically saying "anti-defined" and I admit the lines between non-theism and anti-theism are difficult to parse at times (as are the lines between religion and theism).

Given this, I think we may agree on some central points despite using differing terminology. I'll try to remember that your 'theism' is my 'spirituality' (or even non-theism) and your comments about Pirsig being "theistic" despite claiming to be "anti-theistic" makes sense if I read this as "definitional despite claiming to be anti-definitional", since yes he admits in LILA that he is, in fact, defining the undefined in a way. As Pirsig acknowledges, even saying "X is undefined" is defining X. (This reminds me of a quote used in Maus by Art Spiegelman, "Samuel Beckett once said, "Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness." ...On the other hand, he SAID it.")

[Mark]
Moving over to MoQ.  We seem to be parcing the words which Pirsig spoke or wrote in the same manner as the bible is read by many.

[Arlo]
Well the other extreme is to allow anything anyone says Pirsig says to stand as being as valid as anything else. Somewhere there has to be clarity, if we are to even speak of Pirsig's ideas (or Plato's or Nietzsche's or anyone's). In lieu of claims that Pirsig said "X", I'm not sure what else one should do but offer contradictory quotes by the author in question, no? 

I think I see a lot of the problem here being one of concern over 'who speaks for' and this really never interested me. I want to know what Pirsig said not to worship him, but to make clear decisions about what I accept and what I reject. While I find much value in Pirsig's thoughts, the end-game for me is not to recite Pirsig, but to make informed decisions as I integrate his ideas into all the others that form the general whirl of thoughts in my dialogues. Right now I am very interested in how Pirsig's ideas gel nicely with structuration theories (such as Bourdieu) and Nietzsche's works. 

So I think there is a difference in pursuing clarity to make informed decisions and pursuing obedience. Does this make sense?

[Mark]
I find Gödel’s theorem to demonstrate that math and logic are human creations and are therefore self-referential.

[Arlo]
I think this holds true for all symbolic systems, including the most ubiquitous, "language". This, to me, is the point behind "all this is just an analogy ((including this statement) and this one)...)" It is the root of the problem "'X is undefined' is a definition". When we push the boundaries of what language can do, very odd things happen.

[Mark]
The musings of a photon are no different than our own, at a fundamental level.  This is how the universe can be made of moral fabric.  This is how everything can have free will.

[Arlo]
I agree with this with one caveat. The potential range of 'will' for a photon is significantly less varied than the range of 'will' for a social-human (or even a feral-biological human). To me, that is the fundamental value of the evolutionary levels, to increase potential. Its not that things become 'more free' in a wholly unconstrained sense (which is impossible) but their structure affords them greater possibility to response to value. This, I'd argue, is why the biological level is morally superior to the inorganic level, because it affords patterns a greater possibility to respond to Quality. 

[Mark]
I have two of those [theism, anti-theism, atheism], how many do you have?

[Arlo]
Given that we are using these words differently, when I say two as well, we may mean the same thing but have selected different words.