From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Dec 07 2004 - 17:05:11 GMT
Hi Sam,
>
> > Besides, I don't see the idea "that 'theism' must be rejected, and so,
> > therefore, must Christianity" is at all pivotal to the present
discussion on
> > Morality. Certainly I'm not defending Christianity here. For some
unknown
> > reason you seem to willing to extend the traditional notion of
Christianity
> > in order to include me. Thanks, but the fact that I don't feel it
necessary
> > to "condemn" religion doesn't mean I'm advocating it.
>
> I just have a
> suspicion that you're arguing for orthodoxy, possibly unknowingly. I was
just wanting to point out
> some areas that you might be interested in exploring, given what I could
discern of your interests.
>
I don't know where your suspicion comes from, but establishing an
"orthodoxy" couldn't be farther from my goals. You may have misinterpreted a
statement made early on in my thesis:
"In the absence of a universal philosophy that would, once and for all,
release the individual from bondage to external authority and the need to
appease an anthropomorphic "Being", man is by and large still ignorant of
the fact that he alone is responsible for his actions and for his
relationships with others."
The philosophical position I'm arguing for here is to wean ourselves from
dependence on "Being-based" authority of any kind so that we may realize our
innate freedom as human beings. If this suggests a cultural movement, it is
clearly one that fosters free-thinking people, certainly not a religious
orthodoxy. I've also cited the threat to individual freedom posed by those
of the liberal persuasion who seek to establish a "new world order" (i.e.,
secular orthodoxy).
Your quote from the Heidegger Dictionary is fascinating to me because it
succinctly states what's wrong with existentialism --
> How does God become a being, the highest entity, rather than simply Sein,
'being'? Being and beings
> are distinct but inseparable. Being 'grounds [gründet]' beings, and
conversely beings 'beground
> [begründen]' being. But beings can beground being only in the form of a
single supreme being, a
> cause that is causa sui, 'cause of itself': 'This is the appropriate name
for the god of philosophy.
If God "becomes a being", this implies evolution or change, aa well as a
prior cause. Heidegger and Sartre were obsessed with Being, as were most of
the classical philosophers. My Essence transcends beingness in space/time:
it needs no prior cause and is unalterable because it is Absolute. Being is
"otherness", and otherness can't exist without difference. Difference is a
manifestation of the "negational nature" of Essence. Plotinus and Eckhart
came close to elucidating this philosophy, the latter from a theological
perspective, but the concept of an immanent Essence is a rarity in
philosophical literature. Even the MoQ avoids positing Quality as the
primary source -- I suspect because it's "too theological" for today's
secularist culture.
Could you forward the information source on Jean-Luc Marion's "God without
Being"? I'd really like to investigate this essay.
Thanks, Sam
Ham
>
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 : Tue Dec 07 2004 - 17:08:02 GMT