yo,
>
> 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,...
>
gav: what is false? that SOM underlies science and theistic religion? that they
both do harm? that you have a problem with theism?
> 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.
hmmmm. the mystic would say we cannot grasp the one eternal truth but we can
experience it or identify with it. the scientist or theist would posit an
objective Truth that we can potentially grasp.
> I mean, there are lots of philosophical reasons for
> rejecting theism
aha. who said anything about rejecting or not rejecting? it is folly to reject
anything. rather accept all. this does not mean endorse or promote. once you
start to divide and oppose you are back in SOM territory
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
i explicitly equated them on metaphysical grounds - i am looking for common
ground, understanding. not playing favourites.
and because Pirsig rejects
> scientific materialism, they imagine they'll find some
> comfort in the MOQ, some sympathy for their theism.
we are having the discussion here - let's stick to that - otherwise i get
confused.
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.
but that is not what i was doing....why are you talking about this?
> 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.
like christian mystics - like jesus? like scientific mystics, like Bohm?
> 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.
but it's not about wrong or right...its about understanding...polar adversarial
dichotomies are a feature of SOM.
where does myth fit in dave? what sort of value is myth?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
