dave me old duffer, hey man i love your style, its precise, droll and ironic (and often very funny). but i do think there is something of the 'thou-doth-protest-too-much' going on with you and theism.
you see i can't see any difference tween materialist science and theistic religion but you don't rail against this most common brand of science.... they both try and grasp the truth outside themselves - GUT or God - no essential diff. i think this parallel is very important to underscore. just as bogus religion has hurt people so has (bogus) science for instance the anxiety, fear and guilt that shite religion pumps is complemented by the alienation that shite science pumps in i am reminded of the trauma inflicted by some catholic brothers on a close friend of mine through school; and the trauma inflicted on another friend by the 'scientific' psychiatric fraternity, still ongoing. religion and science, as they are, work together to fuck us up. they are both operating from faulty metaphysical premises. even south park has picked up this theme i am fortunate to have a good friend (michael) who is more historically aware than anyone i have ever met. he reminds me of the subtlety of thought that has been going on for over two millennia in the west. it was often religion that produced and nurtured these thinkers, even up to those that spawned the separation of science from religion. the key, once more, is power. power seeks to dominate through what information it makes available. the highest quality work - the most precise and illuminating, is muffled in favour of the mediocre and divisive. in this way the individual is kept confused and docile. whether the catholic church or fascism, power seeks to retain and expand power - this is the nature of power. pirsig is pretty clear about his mission - he is not trying to denigrate religion in the light of science - he is trying to heal the rift. to do this we should be looking for common ground rather than polemicising, in my humble opinion (haha) cheers dude > gav said: > u are sounding a little mccarthy like...(theist replacing > communist) as i am sure you know - humility is the key that > opens the door you know i love ya > > > > dmb says: > > It always cracks me up when people start bragging about how > humble they are. As if it isn't arrogant to berate another > for their insufficient humility. And, as if that irony > weren't rich enough, here we've got two personal insults > followed by an expression of love. And this is what I get > instead of a response to the substance of my remarks? > > That's really low, gav, and I'm shocked to see it coming > from you. > > I see this all the time. People hate what I'm saying but > for some reason choose to attack my style or my attitude > rather than what was said. C'mon, think about that. You know > perfectly well that such a response is philosophically > meaningless, intellectually worthless, not to mention > childish and mean. Have you ever seen such tactics used as > part of a sound argument? Have you ever seen this tactic > used against the guy who's losing the argument? You'd > probably be hard pressed to find such a case because this > kind of "you-better-know-your-place-you-uppity-jerk" attempt > to muzzle almost always follows from the exact opposite. > It's so much easier to insult the messenger than it is to > grapple with the message. I suppose it works sometimes. But > that's really just a "shut up or I'll hurt you" kind of > thing. This demand for humility is just an unhumble bullying > tactic. > > I mean, what's the problem, really? The case against theism > was laid out carefully and backed up with supporting quotes > from pragmatists. Naturally, this lends a certain level of > confidence but so what? Why should such confidence count as > some kind of personal flaw? Doesn't it just mean that time > and energy and work has gone into the making of that case? > There is a difference between having an informed opinion and > merely being opinionated. The former has to be earned > through effort and the latter is just an attitude about the > importance of one's own views. Big difference. > > The funny thing is, I don't have a very high opinion of > myself. Before I went back, it was not at all certain that I > could even get into a graduate school and I wasn't at all > sure that I could keep up even if they let me in. Yes, I'll > admit that I've grown in confidence in the last few years. > In fact, if the aim was to simply to aggrandize myself, I'd > brag about my grades and tell you all the flattering things > I've heard from my professors, as well as the encouraging > words from McWatt and Pirsig and from the occasional piece > of fan mail. At moments like this, it's mighty tempting to > repeat that stuff. There is a very stark difference between > the treatment I get at school and the treatment I get here > (for doing essentially the same thing). How would you take > that if you were in my shoes? What would you make of that? > If the chairman of the philosophy department says your work > is awesome and then some guy on the internet says your work > is awful, who are you gonna believe? How wo > uld you explain the stark difference between these two > evaluations? Do you think they're equally valid, equally > informed opinions? Do you think they're both in an equally > good position to make such judgements about pragmatism or > its significance? > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ > 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/ > 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
