I think the disparagement of any serious thinker for either their theism or their anti-theism is an easy and facile way of turning away from the actual issues and not worthy of a serious thinker.
and I admire serious logicians, even though I can barely follow their work. I can understand why you come down so hard on any whiff of theism in the MoQ. That's fine, even commendable because philosophy has a certain relationship with religion that it's very important (moral) to maintain. However, rejecting as inferior thinkers, those who find it logical to conclude in a theistic explanation for the unknown, throws out most of classical philosophy and a lot of good post modern stuff as well. methinkest thou protesteth too much. But then, you always have, so at least you're consistent. On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 8:34 AM, david <dmbucha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > ________________________________ > From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of > John Carl <ridgecoy...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:48 AM > To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org > Subject: Jeez, what a Fraudulent Ignoramus! > > John said to dmb, > > So... Pirsig would fit well with Whitehead except that Whitehead isn't > anti-theistic enough? > > For my part, I'd rather see RMP aligned with a prominent and accepted > philosopher, but hey, thats just me. > > > <http://robertpirsig.org/SneddonThesis.html>dmb says: > > RMP has aligned himself with mainstream American philosophy, with > Pragmatism and Radical Empiricism, and there is a mountain of evidence for > that as well as clear and explicit claims by Pirsig in Lila. Whitehead, on > the other hand, is not particularly prominent or accepted among > philosophers BECAUSE of his theism and his metaphysics. This is not my > opinion but rather a fact about the world of philosophy. Here is some clear > and simple evidence from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: > > > 6. Whitehead's Influence > > Unlike the logical apparatus Whitehead developed with Russell, Whitehead's > attempt to provide a metaphysical unification of space, time, matter, > events and teleology has been less than enthusiastically embraced by > members of the broader philosophical community. In part, this may be > because of the connections Whitehead saw between his metaphysics and > traditional theism. [...] Thus, although not especially influential among > many Anglo-American secular philosophers, Whitehead's metaphysical ideas > continue to have influence among some theologians and philosophers of > religion. > > > > > Will this evidence have any effect on your easily defeated claim, John? I > seriously doubt it. Are you even capable of being persuaded by evidence or > reason? I've never seen any evidence of that. > > > I suggest a different hobby, one that involves your hands but not your > intellect. > > > > > > > [http://robertpirsig.org/MOQ20Shop20April202011.jpg]<ht > > tp://robertpirsig.org/SneddonThesis.html> > > > > robertpirsig.org : A Process Analysis of Quality<http://robertpirsig. > > org/SneddonThesis.html> > > robertpirsig.org > > a process analysis of quality: a.n. whitehead and r. pirsig on existence > > and value . by. andrew sneddon > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-boun...@lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of > > Andre Broersen <andrebroer...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 8:47 AM > > To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org > > Subject: [MD] "RMP: Ignoramous or fraud? > > > > John: > > So "ignoramous" non-perjorativel then, but the fact is, he DID at least > > read some AN Whitehead. Quotes him > > from reading his book on history of philosophy, in the bowels of the > > troopship. > > > > dmb: > > And speaking of fraudulent ignoramuses, nobody around here will be > > surprised if John has tried to slander Pirsig or if has dishonestly tried > > to smuggle in a theistic view. Again. It's like a hobby, I guess. Trolls > > will be trolls. > > > > Andre: > > And not only that but John bases the slander on false claims he invents > > himself. Phaedrus did not read A.N. Whitehead at all in the bowels of the > > troopship! He was reading F.S.C. Northrop ' The Meeting of East and > West". > > A simple reference to page 117 of ZMM will suffice (Corgi edition). > > 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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > > moq.org > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and > > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our > current > > paradigms allow > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > "finite players > play within boundaries. > Infinite players > play *with* boundaries." > 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 > > [http://robertpirsig.org/MOQ20Shop20April202011.jpg] > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
