> [John] > But the fact that you bring up the subject, long after the protagonists of > theism have given up and fled, is a clue to something that must be going on > in your own head. > > [Arlo] > Apparently they have not 'fled', John.
John: touché Arlo, I miswrote. I am an advocate of theism. What I should have said was "advocates of the MoQ AS a theism" for that is the subject under discussion. > > [John] > ... is a clue to something that must be going on in your own head. > > [Arlo] > Only that it represents a redefinition, both of Pirsig's MOQ and the meaning > of 'theism', to the point where both are distorted beyond value. I also > pointed out its the same inanity that says "atheism is a form of theism", in > the case of the MOQ you are saying that "anti-theism is a form of theism", > which may help those in need of theism sleep at night, but does nothing for > the MOQ (or theism). > > [John] > Anti-theism is probably the single biggest factor In the promulgation of SOM. > > [Arlo] > Since the MOQ is anti-theistic, and it opposes SOM, this statement is about > as gross a misunderstanding of the MOQ as I've seen. But this just proves my > point. > > 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
