dmb, thanks for responding,
> > 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? > > Well that's not the way I see it. If your point is, "John is a stupid theist and should be excluded from the MoQ" I don't seen any real way to respond to that except to close down. But that's not a logical argument, it's a reason for avoiding a logical argument. And that's what I've perceived from you in the main. But regardless of the "I know you are but what am I" stuff, you have responded and that is good. Same thing happened with Steve and I. Hmmm... Well I'm really not much like Steve. If you're experiencing the same patterns with different people and you have problems with those patterns, perhaps you should examine the common denominator? > 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. > > Ah, yes. Well I get away with that stuff because I make no pretension really beyond a childish kindergartner asking my simple questions. So I hope you can deal with it somehow. I do like actual reasonableness in its simplest form possible. I feel that's the way logical argumentation ought to proceed. Focus on the key points and not get sidetriacked by past experiences and prejudices. Isn't that a keynote of Pragmatism really? Keep things fresh that way? dmb says: > For whatever it's worth, I just state my case too. It just so happens that > school work has me saturated with this stuff so there are usually relevant > quotes at my elbow. > > Well by all means, I don't mind the quotes. That's book learnin' we don't get in North San Juan much. Ed Abbey talks about dropping in on a New Mexico Small town library once and asking for the Philosophy of William James and getting discouraged when he noticed the little lady librarian lookin' under "F". But if the quotes go off into some irrelevancy like against Hegelianism or whatnot, they don't do me any good because there's no argument there. > John said to dmb: > 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. > > > > 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. > Well I don't recall anything you've posted to shed light on that. I did remember something recent from Lila's Child I posted regarding Pirsig's statement that in the MoQ, religious concepts and scientific were both equally real, and equally patterns of value. To my mind its a very simply proposition that religious concepts have value in keeping social patterns away from self-destructive tendencies and thus are pragmatically valid. But hey, if you say you've got a fuller explanation for me down the road, I can wait patiently. Lord knows I've learned to wait patiently on you David. > > 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. Yes, well letting your automatically pre-programmed reactions is a sort of avoidance, so I don't think my impression is completely INaccurate either. > 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. See? I knew we could come to common agreement. I don't see how the MoQ could be theistic OR atheistic, since both are static patterns which must be measured by Quality as to their relative worth to the individual in the moment. > 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. > > > Glad to hear it. Now behave in your online life or you'll get flunked out there. Just kidding, just kidding. Obviously. Actually, you won't get kicked out, but you might get ridiculed. Like I had a response all ready to go if you were gonna treat me to the Sounds of Silence, again. Wanna see it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-HRBxLkrc John the faithful opposition 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
