I strongly and very persistantly agree with Dan,this game you'r trying to induce here , Mark , in common streetwise talk is called mindfucking.
But there is a real name for it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum good reading stuff too anyway. 2010/11/8 118 <[email protected]> > Hi Dan and everyone who agrees with Dan, > > Now you stated that you were anti-theistic. However, the command to keep > dynamic quality concept free is straight out of the hand-book on Theism. > Do > you know why there is a command against the worship of false idols? This > is > because God cannot be encapsulated in such idols, it is concept free. > Creating concepts of God does not lead to God, worship does. You are > asking us to worship dynamic quality. > > I assume you know this since you put yourself squarely in the camp of > anti-theists. You cannot take this stand and then use Theistic concepts to > further the cause of Quality. MOQ is based on rational thought, not in the > denial of rational thought. This kind of dictate is dangerous and you know > it! If you are going to drag Pirsig in, then please explain why you deny > rational thought to dynamic quality in your own words? Is there any > rational reason besides a Theistic one? > > I believe you owe the group an explanation, not some sentence from Pirsig. > In my opinion you are clearly on a wrong and dangerous path here. > > If you are a disciple of Hegelian philosophy (for example) does that mean > you subscribe to every precept of Hegel's? I wouldn't think so, because if > so, why would there be any reason to further his philosophy through debate. > Pirsig is no God, he is not infallible, he would tell you that himself. > You are treating him in a Theistic way, which is unbecoming of this > metaphysics. > > Please explain why you deny rational thought to dynamic quality. Have you > read anything but Pirsig, for example Theistic premises? > > I await your response and from anybody who agrees with you. > > Patiently, > Mark > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello everyone > > > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:09 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > > I would disagree with the notion of keeping Dynamic Quality concept > free. > > > > Dan: > > You are disagreeing with Robert Pirsig, who wrote the MOQ. He > > specifically states that Dynamic Quality is to be kept concept-free. > > Of course, you would know that if you bothered reading anything. > > > > Dan > > 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 > > > 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 > -- parser 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
