From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 18:02:50 BST
Hi all,
Back from a long weekend. Geeze, I figgered you guys would have all
this worked out by now! But I see le' Avalanche Buchanan has been
thundering seaward, so ya'll have your hands full.
'What if he [Kerry] said that "values that he practices as an MOQer
will guide me as president". Is that faith, why or why not? '
I'd say it's not, because, as I've mentioned in another thread,
Pirsig presents a very convincing argument for the reality of
Quality/Value. In ZMM he shows the absurdity of a world without
value. So we're dealing with rational empiricism, not faith. In
fact, Pirsig makes it clear that there is no room for faith in the
MOQ. So if anyone said "I have faith in the principles of the MOQ,"
I'd have to say that they don't even understand the principles of the
MOQ.
This is why I've tried to pin down the difference between Quality and
God. It's because of Pirsig's RAA argument that I've asked for a
similar bit of reasoning in support of the existence of a
personalized ground of being, one that would care about the
individuals killed on 9/11, or anyone else.
David Morey has said there IS a difference but was not specific,
saying that "using the god-concept may allow us to also bring in
other ideas that have been used in association with the god-concept
but not yet with quality." I would like to discuss those other
ideas.
Scott Roberts, I believe, sees both Quality and God as ways of
referring to aspects of a "disembodied consciousness" he sees as the
ground of being. Here he casts his vote for consciousness as the
ultimate reality because in doing so the problem of consciousness
arising from matter, he believes, disappears. On the other hand, I
choose to let the problem be a problem, for now, and go with the
rational empiricism of the MOQ, believing that a large amount of
empirical evidence suggests the possibility that consciousness may
very well be a manifestation of matter.
Sam Norton, to his credit, was quite precise about the difference
between God and Quality: God cares (or values) individual human
beings while the MOQ does not. I would disagree that the MOQ, a
metaphysics of MORALITY after all, places no value on individuals;
rather it insists that an individual's personal value should not be
allowed to destroy the value of things higher in the moral hierarchy,
specifically societies and ideas, that result in higher value for
all.
But even if it's true that Quality does not value individuals, and
God does, a belief in this idea of a personal, caring "ground of
being", is faith-based while my belief in Quality is not, or so I
have argued.
However, I'm not convinced, as DMB seems to be, that religious belief
is for everyone devoid of value, that is, that people who value it
are dupes of the God-Squad. Sam suggested to me, off-list, that
current theological trends don't try to resolve the Problem of Evil
so much as teach people to live with the doubt it engenders. I think
the same can be said for living with the possibility that the "ground
of being" may indeed not care for us as individuals. To me, the
important fact is that we can and do care for one another, though,
sometimes, this too is hard to believe.
Best to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' 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 : Mon Oct 25 2004 - 18:23:45 BST