From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 13 2005 - 09:50:25 BST
Hang on, Ham!
You wrote:
> The problem, of course, is that he [Eckhart] mentions the G-- word, which is verboten
> in Pirsig's Quality Land. In the one reply I received from Prisig
> concerning my thesis, he wrote, "positivists usually deny 'essence' as
> something like 'God' or 'the absolute' and dismiss it [as] experimentally
> unverifiable, which is to say they think you are some kind of religious
> nut." So anti-theistic are the MoQ people that they cringe from a full
> metaphysical thesis for fear of being labeled "religious"! They've accused
> me of having a "religious agenda". So I sincerely hope you are not also
> offended by a concept that most people equate with a deity.
Are you equating "MoQ-people" with the "positivists" mentioned by
Pirsig? Nothing could be further from the truth. That Pirsig quote, as
I interpret it, places him on your side!
A lot of the time, I find "God" used in a very similar way to how I
would use "DQ". Both are supposed to have created the world that we
experience. Have there been MD discussions on this point? Because I
must say, Ham, that I'm rather surprised at the emphasis you place on
points such as this, while you seem to assume that you're saying
something that MD'ers find outrageous. How did you come to this
conclusion? You seem to label most MoQ'ers as nihilists, but how can
that be, when the MoQ says that values and morals are real - indeed
that they are built into the fabric of reality?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 13 2005 - 10:45:24 BST