From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Jan 03 2005 - 19:53:14 GMT
Ian --
> Thanks Ham - I didn't respond to Chin, since as you say it went off in
other
> directions, before I was sure where we were starting from.
Yes, Chin does tend to 'philosophologize". But his suggestion that theism
is a dualistic belief system is correct and, I think, pertinent to our
discussion. In fact, it probably explains why I'm not a theist better than
a definition. I don't believe in God (Essence) as an "otherness". The
concept of an immanent Essence is more like the "subjective idealism" that
Paul has cited and that others are alluding to when they talk about
Mysticism.
> On your defintions I'm not actively anti-theist - not yet anyway :-)
>
> You inclusion of the word "refusal" in your defintion of athesist is one
of
> "intent"
> I don't believe in a trascendent being, because I see no need to, and so
far
> see that anywhere he does get called in to play as just a lazy cop out. If
> any evidence led me to the existence of a god as the least far-fetched
> explanation of anything, I would not refuse to believe though.
>
> My doubt concerning the existence of a god is so great that it is
> not a useful / meaningful / pragmatic starting point (for me) beyond a
> thought experiment on the subject of god .
I understand exactly where you're coming from. However, I used the word
"refusal" advisedly because the typical atheist is intransigent in his or
her unbelief; he is not open to suggestions or arguments to the contrary.
From what you've said above, I would qualify you as an agnostic, since you
are at least willing to be convinced. Like Mr.Pirsig, you abhor the
"religious baggage" of Judeo-Christianity, yet accept the Quality
metaphysics of MoQ lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, you are an ideal
candidate for Essentialism, and (unless you consider it proselytizing), I
think I could convince you that a primary source of existence is not only
necessary but "useful", "meaningful", and even a "pragmatic starting point"
for a workable philosophy.
You see, when Paul makes a statement like "The primary 'reality-in-itself'
is nothingness", he is preaching nihilism. It should be obvious to a
student of philosophy that whatever is "real" can't be "nothingness". But
Nihilism and Anti-theism are quite fashionable these days, and Pirsig has
played right into it. Belief in a diety is outmoded, unsophisticated,
unworthy of the enlightened intellect. Balderdash!! Mankind has always
searched for a connection with his creator; this desire is innate in human
beings, and some scientists have even speculated that it is built into our
genes. The desire to attain an 'eternal connection', in fact, manifests
man's highest value. Even Marsha, who claims to be an atheist, says:
"Personally, I like what I'm reading of Zen. It's atheistic and finds
everything sacred. I like that in a philosophy/religion." Why do you
suppose.she likes to imagine everything sacred? Because she wants an
all-encompassing Source to believe in. This Source isn't in the Zen 'UM' or
in the MoQ Quality or in the pantheist's Beingness. It is best expressed
for the Western mind, I think, in the concept of an immanent Essence.
Please do me the favor of re-reading my thesis at www.essentialism.net, Ian,
this time without the bias of "atheist/theist" labeling. If you don't find
what I have to say philosophically meaningful, or at least worth
questioning, you can return to your atheistic persuasion and I'll desist in
my efforts to convince you.
And, thanks for your forthright reply.
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 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 07:26:43 GMT