Oh Arlo, can you really be this obtuse? Or are you just waving a distracting flag in your opponent's face?
[Arlo] > Pirsig himself says his philosophy is anti-theistic. John: Pirsig himself said, "In this regard, the Moq is anti-theistic" Do you have any clue at all what that regard is Arlo? Or are you just another parrot who repeats dmb's ill-formed and anti-intellectual postings? I'll give you a clue, the original quote is in the Coppleston Annotations. If you can provide me a rationale for your conclusion - that is, some reasonable rationale. Then I'll take your arguments seriously. But I don't have time for squawking parrots. Arlo: > 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. > > John: I don't define the MoQ as theistic. You really are a very poor reader, if you think that. In fact I haven't heard anybody say such a silly thing and I wondered at what games are going around your head. I said *I* am theistic, but the MoQ is beyond mere theism. The MoQ is a tool for choosing and a platform that makes choice rational. The only thing I'll find in the archives, is intellectual circles going 'round and 'round and getting nowhere meaningful at all. Please God, send some intelligence to this man before I scream. JC 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
