David,
> dmb replies sarcastically: > > Oh, yea. I know exactly what you mean. When people only vaguely recall a > story that I love, it's just devastating. Sometimes I mope around for days > when people don't recall the details about the things I love. And this > memory lapse reveals their true nature of course, as a person who doesn't > believe in good, as a person who doesn't "get it". Sigh. What's wrong with > people? Why can't they obsessively cling to the things I love? I mean, if I > love it and they don't, well obviously that means there is something wrong > with them. > > For example, people who choose vanilla when they could've had chocolate > ought to be shot. How dare they! > > And the nonsense just keeps gets deeper, doesn't it? Good advice for guys > stuck in holes: Stop digging. > > I agree completely. Please clarify for me before I address your implied concerns whether this is a confession or an accusation. I don't want to make THAT mistake again. But seriously, I honestly feel that every time I get in a debate with you, you come to a certain point and then close down. There's no resolution to scores of arguments I've proposed and there's no continuation to completion any dialogue we've had. It's discouraging to me, and even you must admit there must be something wrong. I understand you are under time pressures and other pressures and it's sorta facile for me to judge, laying back in my broken down shack with all the time in the world to be annoying. I admit, it's hardly fair. But I don't spend hours thinking up stuff to say, or figuring out the correctness of my position, I just state my case as logically as I can in the moment, and invite you to do the same. No need to overthink, if either one of us makes a mistake there's only a bazillion sharp-eyed critics constantly watching over our shoulders, keen to offer correction. Just take a deep breath, and I'll carefully explicate my position as of this moment - Your own James admits the value of variety of religious experiences. The fact that I've found value for myself personally, in a juxtapositioned meta-christianity and the MoQ, why is that bad? To my mind, all religions evolve for the needs of men. Pirsig offers an argument for a pre-existing good which is creative of these differing analogies, and understanding the metaphysical existence of this good, does not trap us in any particular religion. Nay, it sets us free to enter into religious play. The idea of religious play within a context of a Quality metaphysics, seems so offensive to you that you can't be objective. It seems you take your own religious views of atheism so fundamentally, that you don't allow any other game. That's projection on my part. How accurate, you'd have to tell me. But the primary essense of my assertion, that the MoQ is a unification of science AND religion, and that both are EQUALLY patterns of value, then why can't a theist also be an MoQist? Explain this rationally to me please. if you're so busy earning the right to be a philosopher, that you can't philosophize, then that IS a pathetic spectacle. And it saddens me we had to see it, on the air. Tonight. John from his deepening, deepening whole 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
