[MD] Why not Theism?

[Francisco Albano]

To put philosophy in the service
> of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of
> evolution trying to devour a higher one." -- Lila, chapter 29 (p362)
>
Paco: IMHO, Science, religion, philosophy should unite to serve the people, especially, the poor, deprived, oppressed, and marginalized -- towards salvation and liberation; national democracy and international solidarity. The salvific and liberational aspects should be developed by MoQ. Of what value is MoQ to the people?Methinks,Pirsig has yet to sing "Ah, sweet mystery of life, at last, I've found you." "El Senor te bendiga y te guarde;
el Senor te mire con agrado y te extienda su amor;
el Senor te muestre su favor y te conceda la paz."
                                          (Numeros 6:24-26) 

    On Friday, November 18, 2016 4:58 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
 

 dmb,



On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:12 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Pirsig makes it pretty clear how he feels about theism and it's place in
> philosophy, particularly his own philosophy. He says he had dismissed
> William James' famous book on religious experience because "it smelled more
> like some Victorian religious propagandists trying smuggle God into the
> laboratory data."



jc:  Sure, but he was man enough to put aside personal prejudices and
really look at the ideas being presented.  Hence he changed his mind on
James, right?

dmb:


> He'd seen plenty of that in biology and chemistry too, he says. He'd also
> turned against the idea of 'uniting science and religion' (and doesn't like
> it any better now)


jc:

Now?  Is he living with you Dave or are you projecting again?


dmb:


> because, "when you start out with an axe like that to grind, it's almost
> guaranteed that you will conclude with something false".


jc:

Exactly.  And this particular axe is a double-headed axe - it cuts both
ways.  If you are so filled with anger and prejudice against theism that
you won't read W. James, or if you throw out all philosophy that deals with
theism as invalid beCAUSE it's theism, then you have the biggest axe to
grind of all time.

dmb:


> As it turned out, James was guilty of none of these uses of philosophy,
> uses that are "immoral" according to the MOQ. Pirsig concludes his
> discussion of James by identifying the MOQ with James' pragmatism and
> radical empiricism.
>
>
Jc:  Exactly

dmb:


>
>
> And that's why I object when John or anyone else tries to smuggle theism
> into the MOQ.


jc:

I understand you completely.  I also disagree completely.  I've stated
many, many times that theism should not be smuggled into the MOQ, nor
should it be imported.  The idea of  quality intellect means you have to
question and examine all issues without prejudice.

dmb:


> It doesn't matter if theism is compatible with my views. What matters is
> that Pirsig thinks it stinks. He thinks that grinding such an axe as you
> approach any philosophy will almost certainly lead to something false. It's
> also immoral, he says, to let a lower form of evolution devour a higher
> one. Theism, I would add, would force a particular definition onto DQ. It's
> metaphysics of the worst kind, the kind where you pretend you can make
> claims about the ineffable mystic reality. If he doesn't want religious axe
> grinding from William James, then he doesn't want it from Whitehead or
> Royce either. And he certainly wouldn't want it from some insulting joker
> on the internet.
>
>
jc:

lol.  I've been a member of this community at least as long as you.  I'm
not some internet troll.  Your false charges reveal a small-minded person
trying to cover his own intellectual shortcomings with  facile and
repetitious inanity.  I seem to recall you had a big problem with Marsha
also.  Was that because of her theism?  Or was it because you don't have
the ability to respond to logical disputation?

dmb:

>
> John, our resident theist,


jc:

So which is it dave, am I a troll or a resident?  Make up your mind.

dmb:



> has heard this argument before and he's seen this evidence too, I suppose,
> but he simply doesn't care about Pirsig's intentions or the meaning of
> Pirsig's text. Axe grinders are like that.
>



>
> "In his undergraduate days Phaedrus had given James very short shrift
> because of the title of one of his books: The Varieties of Religious
> Experience. James was supposed to be a scientist, but what kind of
> scientist would pick a title like that? What instrument was James going to
> measure these varieties of religious experience? How would he empirically
> verify his data? It smelled more like some Victorian religious
> propagandists trying smuggle God into the laboratory data. They used to try
> to do that to counteract Darwin. Phaedrus had read early nineteenth century
> chemistry texts telling how the exact combination of hydrogen and oxygen to
> produce water told of the wondrous workings of the mind of God. This look
> like more of the same." -- Lila, chapter 26 (p325)
>
>
>
jc:

So, we're supposed to use the reasonings of a an undergrad analytic to form
and control the future of the MoQ?  By those lights, any undefined term is
"merely in your head"  By such reasoning, the MoQ itself is invalid.


dmb:


>
> "He'd read quite a bit of James' philosophy. Now he wanted to get into
> some of his biography to put perspective on it. He wanted particularly to
> see how much actual evidence there was for the statement that James' whole
> purpose was to 'unite science and religion.' That claim had turned him
> against James years ago, and he didn't like it any better now. When you
> start out with an axe like that to grind, it's almost guaranteed that you
> will conclude with something false. The statement seemed more like some
> philosophological simplification written by someone with a weak
> understanding of what philosophy is for. To put philosophy in the service
> of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of
> evolution trying to devour a higher one." -- Lila, chapter 29 (p362)
>
>
> "There was nothing in what he was reading that suggested James was some
> kind of religious ideologue interested in proving some foregone conclusion
> about religion. Ideologues usually talk in terms of sweeping
> generalizations and what Phaedrus was reading seemed to confirm that James
> was about as far as you can get from these. In his early years especially,
> James' concept of ultimate reality was of thing concrete and individual. He
> didn't like Hegel or any of the German idealists who dominated philosophy
> in his youth precisely BECAUSE they were so general and sweeping in their
> approach." -- Lila, chapter 29, (p363)
>
>
>
There are other sorts of ideals and there are other sorts of generalities.
Throwing out one set in favor of its opposite isn't rejecting ideals and
generalities.

John
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