Re: MD Access to Quality

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 16:42:30 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Static and dynamic aspects of mysticism and religious experience"

    Ham,

    This is part 1 of 2....

    On 7 Apr 2005 at 3:13, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:

    One thing that should be clear by now (and that probably accounts for
    softening your antagonism) is that I'm not an advocate of religion;
    I'm an advocate of the core belief which drives people to religion.

    msh:
    I'd say you are an advocate of a fear (belief is too kind) that
    drives SOME people to religion. Insofar as your belief system
    (Essentialism) helps ameliorate that fear, in fact by your own words
    was designed and created to do so, it's difficult to see why it
    should be regarded as something more than religion. So I guess I
    disagree with your statement, above.

    ham:
    The tendency of agnostics like yourself is to counter with "That's
    not philosophy -- it's faith in a belief system".

    msh says:
    To be clear, I'm not even agnostic. So far, no one has been able to
    explain to me what they mean by "god" or "afterlife" or "continued
    awareness sans physical body." This always makes me suspicious
    because I can understand some pretty complicated things. Anyway, I
    don't even know what it is I'm supposed to believe in, or not believe
    in, so I guess I'm some kind of hyper-agnostic.

    ham:
    To which I say, our knowledge of physical reality is faith in a
    belief system. Why, therefore, is philosophy (which may or may not
    claim to be empirically based) any less a belief system?

    msh says:
    This is an old can that's been kicked around the block, here, a dozen
    times. There's a huge difference between pragmatic acceptance of
    scientific or metaphysical principles, and faith-based, fear-driven
    acceptance of religious beliefs. To deliberately conflate the two as
    "faith-based" is simply dishonest and non-productive.

    msh before:
    But why do you feel it's necessary to inject "spirituality" into
    philosophy, that's the question. Whose void other than your own are
    you seeking to fill?

    anonymous via Ham:
    "If you believe that your existence may end at physical death, you
    are accepting the idea that 'nothing' may follow death, and you are
    by definition accepting the possibility that 'nihilism' is correct.
    Once we realize that the acceptance of nihilism is a necessary
    consequence of our humanistic beliefs, or non-beliefs, we will be
    able to decide for ourselves if what we currently believe to be true,
    is what we really want to believe is true. Until we understand the
    nature of 'nothing', we may well have difficulty appreciating
    'anything'."

    msh says:
    This is actually refreshingly clear. One's suspicion of nothingness
    after death is a powerful motivation for appreciating the something
    we have. While we have it. Now blend in Arlo's idea that wanting
    something to be true is not sufficient for making it so, and you're
    driving toward the light..

    ham continued:
    It occurred to me that the desire for "continuity" is not only
    universal in humans, but on a par with the desire to survive in life.

    msh says:
    It is evident that this desire is certainly not universal in humans,
    so the rest of your paragraph is without foundation. But some
    comments...

    ham continues:
    This is true whether one believes in a deity or not. As egotistical
    as it sounds, assurance of continuity may well be man's highest
    value.

    msh says:
    Although it's evident that some people crave assurance of continuity,
    it's hard to see the value in such an obsession. In fact, it seems
    to me that such an obsession diminishes the possibility of living a
    valuable, full, and useful life.

    ham:
    Survival in life (for a normal life-span at least) is assured by our
    biological metabolism; there is no such assurance for pyschic
    continuity beyond the death of our biological organism.

    msh says:
    Right. No assurance, and no evidence or reason to believe it. In
    fact, there is abundant evidence to support the opposite case.

    ham:
    Such assurance can only come from a belief system based on reason and
    faith.

    msh:
    There are plenty of such faith-based systems, that's true enough.
    There are none none based on reason that I know of. You CLAIM
    Essentialism is such a system but, so far, your claim is
    unsubstantiated.

    ham:
    For lack of a better word, I've called this core belief
    "spirituality". And I repeat my assertion that a philosophy which
    does not address this core issue is pointless because it offers no
    meaning for man's existence.

    msh says:
    But your assertion is invalid, as I'll argue in part 2.

    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
    "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
    	We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
    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 : Thu Apr 07 2005 - 16:56:01 BST