Arlo the pontificate: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:08 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote:
> [John] > Pirsig himself said, "In this regard, the Moq is anti-theistic" Do you > have > any clue at all what that regard is Arlo? > > [Arlo] > You've already decided I don't, why ask? > > John: I was trying to helpfully point out that you have no idea what you are talking about. Isn't that sweet of me? It's a big issue, imo. I don't know why there isn't more discussion and understanding of such an important point. I've made it before repeatedly, but it doesn't really seem to sink in. Ever. And often I have to respond (again) to the idea that the MoQ is anti-theistic. The "regard" in which it is anti-theistic, is in using "god" as a term. It's semantically anti-theistic because of all the baggage the term, God, carries for people today. Copleston: In the third stage, that of 'absolute religion', the selfconscious subject and its object, Nature, are seen as distinct yet essentially related, and at the same time as grounded in an ultimate unity. And God is conceived 'as the Being who is at once the source, the sustaining power, and the end of our spiritual lives'. This does not mean, however, that the idea of God is completely indeterminate, so that we are forced to embrace the agnosticism of Herbert Spencer For God manifests Himself in both subject and object, and the more we understand the spiritual life of humanity on the one hand and the world of Nature on the other, so much the more do we learn about God who is 'the ultimate unity of our life and of the life of the world'. Pirsig: The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term “God” is completely dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is anti-theistic. John: The MoQ itself is no more "anti-theistic" than it is "anti-intellectual" I would deem The MoQ as meta-theistic, and meta-intellectual. But you pick out any term you like. If you are anti-theistic, then fine. But don't claim on Bob's authority, that the MoQ is too. That's just plain anti-intellectual and I know you don't wanna be that. Know thy sources, son. Should be engraved over the door of every academic hall in the land. > [John] > But I don't have time for squawking parrots. > > [Arlo] > Then why are you wasting your time talking to me, John? Since you've made > it > clear this is what you think I am. > John: I don't have time for squawking parrots, but I do have time for you (obviously) thus we can only conclude that I don't think you are one, but rather I'm warning you away from that kind of behavior. See how helpful I am? > > [John] > I don't define the MoQ as theistic. > > [Arlo] > Is that what your anger is about, that I misrepresented you as a proponent > of > "MOQ=theism"? Then I apologize. If I implied that, I redact it, > wholeheartedly > and without exception. > > JOHN DOES NOT THINK THE MOQ IS THEISTIC!! > > Hugs. > > John: Awww... thanks big guy. Backatcha. I'm not really angry, I just come across that way. I'm intensely engaged. I often have to explain this a lot to my daughters who make the same conclusion you do, so I must be expressing myself a bit too vociferously or something. Get caught up in the heat of the debate and all. I'll try and tone it more friendly-like. But yeah, I do care about this issue and I jump on it when it comes to my attention. Also, I love the Copleston Annotations. > [John] > I said *I* am theistic, but the MoQ is beyond mere theism. > > [Arlo] > What is "mere theism"? Is there a "theism" that is not "mere"? If "theism" > is > "mere", why do you choose to embrace it? > > John: Well I say "mere" because I believe if you make theistic conceptualization your god (highest value) then you are trapped by its dogmatic assertions and I don't like being trapped by dog-matic assertion. I'm not a dog, I'm a coyote. But on the other hand, we all gotta eat. I've said it before, I believe in God because doing so makes me laugh. It's an orientation toward the world that pays off for me in cash value. But I wouldn't know if my belief was any good or not, if it wasn't for the Metaphysics of Quality. I don't know how else to describe it. I'm weird, that's why. How 'bout that? Is that more satisfying? I'll accept it for now. Arlo: Now really, can we drop this? I'm stupid. You're wise. I'm a parrot. You're > a > creative, wonderful, intellectual free-thinker. There. Move on. I'm not > worthy. > > You make me laugh too, Arlo. I must therefore believe in you also. Hmmm... its not a bad criteria for reality, when you come to think of it. That which is real is that which makes us laugh. Art is God. Happy? I am. (I AM... get it?) John 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
