[Arlo previously]
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.
[John]
Really? How so?
[Arlo]
Pirsig himself says his philosophy is anti-theistic. The only way it
could be redefined as a 'theism' is if everything, including atheism is
defined as a theism. At that point, everything is a theism and the word
has no meaning, since you've defined it so that everything is, ipso
facto, "theism".
I am not going to repeat this argument that has appeared here numerous
times. It's all in the archives.
[Mark]
I think the point is, what kind of message are you sending with this
anti-theistic movement that is any different from the rest of modern
philosophy?
[Arlo]
I am not sending an anti-theistic message, Pirsig is.
[Mark]
Perhaps you are viewing theism at arms length as a static dogma.
[Arlo]
Right, here's where the redefinition to force the label comes in, just
as I mentioned. I am not interested in redefining "theism" so that you
get to keep a label you appear so vehemently stuck to. Pirsig described
his philosophy as "anti-theistic", if that offends you, or if you have
to twist around a whole lot of definitions just so that you can call his
philosophy theistic, then you're just proving my earlier analogy.
As I said to John, I have no interest in pursuing this argument. Been
there. Done that. But thanks for proving my point. Appreciate that.
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
