Hi Louise: It's mighty good of you to stand by your man but let me offer an explanation because I don't things are quite as bad as you've characterized them.
As I see it, the claims of theists are no different from anyone else's claims. No matter what the topic is, posters get to dispute, comment on, question and scrutinize the other posters. Nobody gets a free pass on that because that's only fair that we all play by the same rules. There is a pretty good reason for the reaction that theism gets around here. Let me qualify that. The problem is not simply that theists are here or even that they're defending theism. The problem is that there is a long history of attempts by various theists to highjack the MOQ, to use the MOQ to defend theism or even convert the MOQ itself into a kind of theism. I guess they find an ally in the MOQ because of the way it attacks amoral scientific objectivity and the materialistic worldview in general. I mean, it's not very hard to see why a theist would be attracted to Pirsig's work because they do share a common enemy. Anyway, your hubby might be discouraged in general but my only intention was to discouraged him from equating Pirsig's quality with God or the Absolute. That constitutes yet another attempt to convert the MOQ into a kind of theism. If my reaction to that seems automatic, that's probably just because I've been down this road a few times and so most of the argu ments were already sitting on the shelf, so to speak. I don't know why I put them away in the first place though, seems like I need them every day. But the same thing would occur if a series of positivists showed up and tried to appropriate the MOQ. Speaking personally, I've had long running arguments that had nothing to do with theism that were motivated by exactly the same concern, namely distortions of the MOQ. Rorty fans like Steve and Matt, pet theorists like Bo, relativists like Marsha, a Case of scientism or two. These disputes aren't about whose views are legitimate and whose aren't. They're just about what the MOQ is and isn't. It's about which ideas contradict or go with other ideas. By analogy, when I'm saying, "You can't put theism into the MOQ like that!" it is like saying, "You can't put sugar in that gastank!". See, it's not that I hate sugar or that I disapprove of people who eat sugar. It's just that sugar doesn't go in gas tanks. Not unless your aim is to wreck the machine. In this analogy, it also happens to be true that I'm not a big fan of sugar but that's not relevant to my concern, which is about w hat's in the machine and not what's in my coffee. I think this concern is legitimate. In that sense I can't say that I regret discouraging your man. But maybe this explanation - as to why I can't say I'm sorry - will help a little. dmb > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:28:22 -0800 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality > > The only person I can change is myself... BUT, *I* cannot change me all by > myself. > > The only way I can change, grow, become better, is by listening to the input > of others, people I like and respect, sure, but also those I don't care for > might also have something useful to add. I can hear it all, and hold on to > that which is good, useful, profitable, and discard that which is not. > > It seems that on a metaphysical discussion group, you would find the > majority with this view - openness to discourse. It is threatening to most > folks out in the world, to have their ideology and worldview challenged. > Here, though, it should be a safe place to bring it ALL up. A LOT of people > believe in a god of some sort. To just chuck out any conversation including > allusions to deity or theism is to exclude a lot of interesting discussion. > > Just the words "god, deity, theism" seems to cause instant panicked > reactions, a whole lifetime of prejudice is married to those words. But I > assure you that the attachments I have to them differs from yours as much as > I differ from you, but what I also know, that most "atheists" or > "anti-theists" don't seem to (or it isn't apparent from what I have observed > here, anyway), is that if we actually took the time and effort to ask the > pertinent questions, and to really listen to each other, we would find > ourselves closer than we might think, and we would all go away from the > conversation richer. > > Lu - the wife of a discouraged man. *sigh* > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/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
