From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 11:09:37 GMT
Ham,
Thanks for the detailed response - I will get to look at your essay again.
Just one point ...
You said about me
[Quote]
Like Mr.Pirsig, you abhor the "religious baggage" of Judeo-Christianity,
yet accept the Quality metaphysics of MoQ lock, stock and barrel.
[Unquote]
I don't believe I accept the MoQ "lock, stock and barrell" any more
absolutely than either Science or Theism.
I see MoQ as a model that is an excellent fit (the best I've found) with
reality (in my humble 48years of experience, and good deal of amateur, but
thoughtful, research).
Like all models it's there to evolve and be modified in the light of fresh
experience.
I don't see a "Metaphysics" - anywhere.
(For that reason I may be sceptical about your essentialism too, but I'll
give it a crack.)
You have to remember that despite thinking about "knowledge models"
(epistemology) for years as a professional engineer and manager, I only read
ZMM and Lila for the fisrt time 3 years ago. MoQ didn't plug a void for me
it just fit incredibly well with, and integrated, so many other models I'd
been working with.
I really am a pragmatist, in the pragmatic sense of the word.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> Ian --
>
> (Sorry for the delay, but my earlier message never got posted--probably
> because my website URL was hyperlinked.).
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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, Ian. 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. My oldest friend, also
agnostic,
> is slowly coming around to my point of view. I see you as an ideal
> candidate for Essentialism.
> 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,
> is a manifestation 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 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 a
question
> or two, you can return to your atheistic persuasion and I'll desist in
> my efforts to convert 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
>
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 - 11:22:22 GMT