gav said to dmb:
...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
dmb says:
That is demonstrably false. This thread began when I responded to a specific
claim about theism. In that post I quoted William James and Hunter Brown on
that point and then said,...
On top of the main point, which is to show that James does not endorse mere
utility, I'd also point out that the "essential dualism of the theistic view"
that make man "extraneous to both the world and himself" has SOM as one of its
collateral consequences. I mean, the idea that we (subjects) are ontologically
distinct from the world (objective reality) has grown almost directly out of
theism. In fact, elsewhere James says that the Cartesian subject is a
quasi-secularized version of the Christian soul. It occurs to me now that the
notion of one eternal Truth beyond the grasp of we mere mortals is common to
both theism and scientific materialism.
I mean, there are lots of philosophical reasons for rejecting theism and it's
not just a coincidence that they overlap with the reasons for rejecting SOM.
But apparently there are people who think theism is somehow a better option
than scientific materialism and because Pirsig rejects scientific materialism,
they imagine they'll find some comfort in the MOQ, some sympathy for their
theism. The philosophical mysticism might make it look even more tempting to a
theist, but those sections of Lila are actually where we find the MOQ's most
elaborate anti-theistic arguments. I really don't think it can be done. Given
all that, it seems to me that trying to squeeze an endorsement of theism out of
Pirsig's isn't just incorrect, it's also kinda sleazy.
The thing is, there is quite a bit of amazing wisdom on spiritual matters in
there. If there is a hunger for such things and you're willing to drop the
theism just long enough to listen to what Pirsig actually says about, what
other mystics actually say, I think you'll find something gooder.
As you can see, the I was already underscoring the parallel you said I should
be underscoring. Who is protesting too much here, gav? You're the one who's
asking me to do what already did? And let me point out again that this post was
a response to a specific claim about pragmatic view of theism. As luck would
have it, that time I was even-handed enough to include the MOQ's rejection of
SOM and scientific materialism without any prompting from you or anyone else,
even though it was not really at issue. But it just isn't reasonable to expect
every objection to include a list of all other objectionable things. Nobody has
the time to be that even-handed, long-winded or badly focused. It's quite
alright to complain about one thing at a time and it's just goofy to complain
about what a guy might have also said.
Your accusations are unkind, unfair and demonstrably false, which means its
falseness can be demonstrated. Hopefully you just saw that demonstration. I'm
going to hold my breath until you admit you were wrong and apologize. Or until
I need to breath, which ever comes first.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/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/md/archives.html
