[Michael] It does not say Theism is Deism, it says theism is belief in a deity...
[Arlo] I'm not sure I even follow you anymore. You see utterly intent on forcing the word "theism" in ways that redefine it into something of your own making. Ultimately, you still seem to confuse "theism" and "mystical experience", and yet seem bent on conflating the two. [Michael] But in exploring the dialog with you all it has become clear to me that there is an insistence here to limit the definition of theism to its least inclusive meaning for the distinct purpose of rejecting it due to the failings of its many cultural manifestations. [Arlo] Theism IS a cultural manifestation. It is not prior to this. The belief in a god or gods is a cultural response to human experience. Its not anyone here making the definition "less inclusive", its you trying to make it so broadly inclusive that it captures things it simply does not. [Michael] There is a distinctly defensive reaction to the concept that Theism itself may have positive quality aspects when considered in its most inclusive. [Arlo] Its more a rejection of your redefinition. [Michael] I find the adamancy of the defence unfortunate, because I think there is much quality to be had from revisiting theism and what it has done / can do for humanity, especially in an MoQ context that seeks to move humanity forward from its "evil." [Arlo] OK. What do you think believing in gods or god can do for humanity? [Michael] I'm seeking to have the word Theism be used as inclusively as possible. Using "Zen" in its place does the exact opposite; it makes it exclusive of all but Zen or its subsets. [Arlo] No. Zen is above theism. "As such, it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of direct, experiential realization through meditation and dharma practice." (Wikipedia). This quote captures the MOQ, and it is why Pirsig rejects theism and posits a metaphysics based on experience. It is why Pirsig has worked to open Zen centers in the USA. It is why even a simple perusal of Ant McWatt's official Pirsig site has "Zen" right out in the open. [Michael] Theism has room for Zen and much else. Zen has only room for Zen. Zen is a subset of th*ism, not an analog of it. [Arlo] Absolutely wrong, and the exact reverse. Theism (or th*ism) is a subset of Zen. Zen is NOT theism. Theism is one possible part of Zen. Zen IS mystical experience. "A special transmission outside the scriptures; No dependence upon words and letters; Direct pointing to the human mind; Seeing into one's own nature and attaining Buddhahood." I would say you won't fully understand the MOQ until you understand Zen. Ant's website contains much on the subject, including Pirsig's own words on Zen and its relation to the MOQ. All this squabble over "god or the gods" is really ridiculous from a Zen point of view that properly places theism as one possible response to the Void. [Michael] No, I am not. I'm not saying th*ism is this Void of yours, or that it is THE way or even A way to anything. I'm saying nothing more than it is the *seed root* of *some* ways to something irrelevant to what I'm saying. [Arlo] I honestly don't know what the argument is here, expect over your wanting to redefine theism for whatever purposes you have. Other than that, we seem to agree on most of this. As I've been saying, I have no trouble with a view that considers theism (in all its world colors) as paintings on the mural of human experience, metaphors that people across the globe and throughout history have used to describe the indescribable. More than this, I don't know what I can say. 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/
