HI DMB,
> dmb says: > > I close down? Unless I missed it, you still haven't said a word about the > case I repeated. After repeated it and I walked you through the argument, > which you accussed me of never making in the first place, you got discouraged > and stopped talking. I mean, isn't it just a fact that you closed down? > > Same thing happened with Steve and I. After repeatedly challenging his > concept of truth, he just dropped it without answering the one and only > question I'd been asking. Then he started a new thread in which I did not > participate (because I figured he was sick of me) and yet the thread was all > about what a dick I am. This is a patten that repeats over and over. When the > debate gets too tough, the topic somehow always gets switched to what a bad > person I am. While this reaction is understandable, it is not intellectually > respectable. It's pretty childish, actually. Steve: I do still plan to get back to our long running battle for the soul of pragmatism. I don't expect our differences to be resolved any time soon, so I'm sure it can wait while I work on some other things. > dmb says: > > The MOQ does claim to unify art, science and religion by making DQ the basis > of them all, but there is also the problem of comparing social level > traditions (like institutional theism) with intellectual level patterns like > science. That deserves a fuller explanation but that will have to wait. You > could also revisit the case I walked you through, because that does explain > something about this issue. > > But let me say that your impression is not at all accurate. The idea that I > won't allow any other game but atheism is defied by the way I spent MOST of > my time. The Master's thesis I'm working on is all about the pragmatic > mysticism of Pirsig and James and this is the kind of research project that > makes it completely impossible to avoid the arguments of theists. Right now > I'm working on the bibliography and so there are about 50 sources at my side > that discuss nothing but pragmatism as it relates to religious studies. As I > see it, theism and atheism are both wrong. This area has interested me for a > long time and I've spent a lot of time and energy thinking about it. I don't > mention this stuff to make a case that being back in school makes me special > or smarter than anybody else, but just to point out that my actual, > non-virtual life bears no resemblance to the accusations of knee-jerkism or > rigidity or closed-mindedness. It's just not possible to be that way and live > the life > that I'm living. They would kick me out or flunk me out, and rightly so. Steve: I think the issue here may be about equating the terms God and theism. There are those even among Christians such as retired Episcopal Bishop who argue that theism as the belief in a supernatural deity existing apart from creation ought to be rejected. Theism like deism, mysticism, pantheism, panentheism, and polytheism are all often viewed as ways of conceptualizing about God. None ought to be equated with God. Also, Dave, if you come across any pragmatists writing about death, dying, and the significance of life, I'd appreciate it if you pointed to anything you interesting. Best, Steve 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
