[MD] John Carl: Ignoramous or Troll?

[John Carl]

I think the disparagement of any serious thinker for either their theism or
their anti-theism is an easy and facile way of turning away from the actual
issues and not worthy of a serious thinker.

and I admire serious logicians, even though I can barely follow their work.


I can understand why you come down so hard on any whiff of theism in the
MoQ.  That's fine, even commendable because philosophy has a certain
relationship with religion that it's very important (moral) to maintain.

However, rejecting as inferior thinkers, those who find it logical to
conclude in a theistic explanation for the unknown, throws out most of
classical philosophy and a lot of good post modern stuff as well.

methinkest thou protesteth too much.

But then, you always have, so at least you're consistent.



On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 8:34 AM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of
> John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:48 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Jeez, what a Fraudulent Ignoramus!
>
> John said to dmb,
>
> So... Pirsig would fit well with Whitehead except that  Whitehead isn't
> anti-theistic enough?
>
> For my part, I'd rather see RMP aligned with a prominent and accepted
> philosopher, but hey, thats just me.
>
>
> <http://robertpirsig.org/SneddonThesis.html>dmb says:
>
> RMP has aligned himself with mainstream American philosophy, with
> Pragmatism and Radical Empiricism, and there is a mountain of evidence for
> that as well as clear and explicit claims by Pirsig in Lila. Whitehead, on
> the other hand, is not particularly prominent or accepted among
> philosophers BECAUSE of his theism and his metaphysics. This is not my
> opinion but rather a fact about the world of philosophy. Here is some clear
> and simple evidence from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
>
>
> 6. Whitehead's Influence
>
> Unlike the logical apparatus Whitehead developed with Russell, Whitehead's
> attempt to provide a metaphysical unification of space, time, matter,
> events and teleology has been less than enthusiastically embraced by
> members of the broader philosophical community. In part, this may be
> because of the connections Whitehead saw between his metaphysics and
> traditional theism. [...] Thus, although not especially influential among
> many Anglo-American secular philosophers, Whitehead's metaphysical ideas
> continue to have influence among some theologians and philosophers of
> religion.
>
>
>
>
> Will this evidence have any effect on your easily defeated claim, John? I
> seriously doubt it. Are you even capable of being persuaded by evidence or
> reason? I've never seen any evidence of that.
>
>
> I suggest a different hobby, one that involves your hands but not your
> intellect.
>
>
>
> >
> > [http://robertpirsig.org/MOQ20Shop20April202011.jpg]<ht
> > tp://robertpirsig.org/SneddonThesis.html>
> >
> > robertpirsig.org : A Process Analysis of Quality<http://robertpirsig.
> > org/SneddonThesis.html>
> > robertpirsig.org
> > a process analysis of quality: a.n. whitehead and r. pirsig on existence
> > and value . by. andrew sneddon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of
> > Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 8:47 AM
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: [MD] "RMP: Ignoramous or fraud?
> >
> > John:
> > So "ignoramous" non-perjorativel then, but the fact is, he DID at least
> > read some AN Whitehead.  Quotes him
> > from reading his book on history of philosophy, in the bowels of the
> > troopship.
> >
> > dmb:
> > And speaking of fraudulent ignoramuses, nobody around here will be
> > surprised if John has tried to slander Pirsig or if has dishonestly tried
> > to smuggle in a theistic view. Again. It's like a hobby, I guess. Trolls
> > will be trolls.
> >
> > Andre:
> > And not only that but John bases the slander on false claims he invents
> > himself. Phaedrus did not read A.N. Whitehead at all in the bowels of the
> > troopship! He was reading F.S.C. Northrop ' The Meeting of East and
> West".
> > A simple reference to page 117 of ZMM will suffice (Corgi edition).
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> > MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> > moq.org
> > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our
> current
> > paradigms allow
> >
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
> Infinite players
> play *with* boundaries."
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
> [http://robertpirsig.org/MOQ20Shop20April202011.jpg]
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."