From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Jan 03 2005 - 02:09:11 GMT
Hello Ian (you, too, Chin) --
Happy New Year to you both.
> Ham, before I agree with Marsha,
> Could you clarify in two or three sentences each, your precise distinction
> between Atheist and Anti-Theist ?
>
> (Your distinction, not dictionary definitions.)
I see that Chin got to your question before I did and has a twist of his own
that I find interesting. Apparently he feels that Atheism "is a denial of
the dualistic distinction of self and other". I don't see dualism as a
necessary to the Theist's belief system, nor do I see how Atheism avoids it.
Since you specifically asked me not to offer standard 'dictionary'
definitions, I assume you want to know my personal usage of these terms.
Let me preface my response by stating that, while I may be considered a
"Deistic Absolutist", I do not consider myself a Theist, even though I am
neither an Atheist nor anti-theistic.
To me, Theism (often prefixed by mono-, poly-. or pan-) is belief in the
existence of one or more supernatural entities which have "beingness" in
common. In my lexicon, that makes God an 'existent', which I deny. In the
case of Pantheism, the believer subscribes to the idea that God is literally
the beingness (existence or totality) of 'everything". While proponents of
the MoQ disguise "beingness" under the more ephemeral term Quality, I submit
that Pantheism is actually their metaphysical position. Chin states: "The
word Quality is not totally interchangeable with Nothingness, The One,
Creator, Source, Being, or Absolute". Despite that minor equivocation,
however, several here have offered me the "Quality=Everything" equation
(initially formulated, I believe, by Mr. Pirsig) in attempting to postulate
the (non-existent) MoQ ontology.
Incidentally, I think that Chin may be on to something by relating Theism to
duality; but it is a duality whose contingencies are God and man, rather
than self and other. Such a concept is, of course, closed to Pantheism
which holds man (or 'self') to be integrated with Being. The problem with
Pantheism, both in Eastern philosophy and the MoQ, is that there is no
accounting for differentiation in the world. (The MoQers apparently think
they can resolve this problem by drawing concentric circles, labeling each
one with a particular kind of being and/or value, and telling us that their
diagram is but an illusion, and that all the circles are really only one
(Dynamic Quality). To me, that's a 'smoke and mirrors"' ontology. (The
cardinal principle of my Philosophy of Essence is that the Absolute is
immutable; that is, there is a "clean break" between the Oneness of Essence
and the differentiated world of existence. The value, meaning and purpose
of life is locked up in that principle.)
As for "atheism" and "anti-theism", that's easy. Atheism is the refusal to
believe in a supernatural or transcendant Being of any kind. Anti-theism is
opposition to any individual or organizational belief in a god, including
any devotional practice, symbol, or expression of such a belief. I see this
mainly as a furtherance of the nihilistic movement of the 20th century, with
numerous political ramifications that I won't go into, as I've far exceeded
my 3-sentence limit.
Essentially yours,
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 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 02:16:32 GMT