> Marsha > Would you like to discuss the MOQ, which does not accept a god or > theism MP: I am interested in exploring the otherwise uncontested contention you and some others hold that MoQ cannot accept even g*d or th*ism, notably where Pirsig indicates it can the "indeterminant divine."
A mathematician strips a formula of constants, replacing them with variables, necessarily eliminating the prior form's *value*, but by no means rendering it non-existent for having done so. The very act of stripping it of value in this manner actually infuses it with greater meaning, makes it more applicable, broadens its reach and enables discovery of greater implications that would have otherwise gone unnoticed without the conversion to variables. This is all I am seeking to explore when I ask that theism be understood as th*ism, God or god as g*d. I am seeking to explore the reach of Pirsig's "indeterminant divine" in a cultural context where MoQ has not (and IMO necessarily cannot be expected to) have a strong cultural acceptance or foothold by looking to its MoQ evolutionary precursor for a means of extending that meaningfully into MoQ on its non-MoQ level. While MoQ'ers may believe that MoQ has no place for God, god or even g*d, it is not a very practical means of evolution even if infallible. The first human to have the intellectual DQ spark that led to society would not have been worth her weight in salt had she refused to work with those who hadn't yet had such a spark. I'd wager she interacted with them in ways that led them to innately recognize the worth of her DQ event rather than present them with a "my way or the highway" ultimatum. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
