Yes! And never apologize to me for interrupting because I do it all the time and you might make me feel bad for doing so.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:06 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry for interrupting, but equating theism and religion is a mistake, > and you did say mistakes would be challenged. - m > > Theism is religion, but not all religion is theistic? Is that your position/understanding? Because mine is different. Pantheism contains "theism", but most churches would brand you a heretic for adopting that view. In my lexicon, any theism represents reified ultimate value, and IN THAT REGARD, the Moq is not merely atheistic, it's antitheistic. In the same regard where the MoQ is not a-SOMish, it's anti-SOMish. But even as the MoQ is fully able to adopt subjects and objects as intellectual playthings, so is it able to embrace the utilization of religious conceptualization and play - as long as such theistic conceptions are "tamed" by the Quality perspective - subordinate to what is good. Go back, you and others who are confused by this quote, and read more carefully the statement Pirsig made in the Coppleston Ann. and read it with an eye toward interpreting what he meant by the modifier "in this regard" when he stated that the MoQ was anti-theistic. I think if read carefully, it will clear some problems some have had in their attachment to anti-theism and their prejudicial adoption of the concept. Off to work! See you at lunch. John 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
