From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 20:39:26 BST
Hi Ham,
> Would a "non-believer" have enough faith in an unknown which, for all he
> knows, might be eternal agony or the 'fire and brimstone' of Dante's
> Inferno? My friend asked me: "Would you purchase a car on that basis?"
> Wouldn't the non-believer be more inclined to trust the perpetual peace that
'nothingness' reliably affords?
My point is that "what" the believer believes is only comforting in the here and
now. It does not effect what awaits us in death.
A "somethingness believer" could spend his/her entire life devoted to buidling a
metaphysical or religious "proof" that "somethingness" awaits, and yet that
won't make it so. Conversely, a "nothingness believer" could spend his/her
entire life devoted to the here and now, and yet will attain the same
"somethingness" as the believer, should "somethingness" be what awaits.
If you are saying that there is immediate psychological value to believing in
"somethingness", or that if we "believe" in somethingness our lives attain
greater value regardless of whether there is "something or nothing", then this
could be points of discussion. And I believe Mark has made already commented on
this.
In your recent post you seemed to state that even if "nothingness" awaits, it is
better to have the masses believe in "somethingness" to combat the immediate
perils of nihilism. I think what is at issue for me is that people become
convinced that "what they choose to believe" to comfort their psyches in the
here and now somehow "effects" whatever outcome awaits us all.
Striving for psychic continuity after death is, to me, a misguided mental
effort. If continuity awaits, we will achieve it, regardless of whether or not
we "believe". And, if it does not await, isn't it better to focus on bettering
conditions in the here and now? You see, to me, our "continuity" is best
evidenced by our legacies and our children. It is towards this "continuity"
that is our greatest task.
> I think it is at least conceivable that a challenge such as the one I've
> described might be the "ultimate test" of one's belief -- whether it occurs at
the instant of death or as a life-long measure of one's belief system. Is a
voluntary choice "unfair"?
It's "unfair" for people to believe, or to be made to believe, that this
"voluntary choice" effects the outcome.
> That's quite true, as far as it goes. But why do we blindly accept
> externally imposed dogma on the matter -- expecially when we realize its
> manipulative intent?
Good point. I'm not sure what drives the masses to dogma. Safety? Laziness?
Peirce points to several ways we "fix our beliefs" (tenacity, authority, a
priori reasoning and scientific methodology (experimentation)). Many are stuck
in tenacity and authority modes. Why? I'm not sure.
> Philosophy is (or should be) a non-manipulative,
> non-dogmatic inquiry into the unknown based on logic and reason. It seems
irrational to me that Philosophy should dismiss the core issue of human
existence on the ground that it is a matter of "faith", "spiritualism" or
"supernaturalism".
I'm not sure I agree that psychic continuity is the "core issue" of human
existence. However the trouble is that both philosophy and religion are static
manifestations. Philosophy trumps religion (in my opinion) because it is
pragmatic and adaptive, non-nationalistic and non-tribal, plus it promotes
dialogue and inquiry, where religion promotes authority and dogma. But, in
either case, what lies outside of static patterns, whether it is DQ or the
Buddha, becomes lessened when forced into these patterns. What seems irrational
to me is to even attempt to do so, lest like the Buddha master says, you lose
your own Buddha nature.
Although this is also what Pirsig reluctantly undertook. If you state upfront
the pragmatic limitations of such an attempt, as Pirsig did, then the benefits
may outweigh the Quality diminuation.
> > Whether "somethingness" or "nothingness" awaits us, the key is to be at
> peace
> > with that.
>
> But CAN we be at peace with that? Are YOU be at peace with that?
Sure. And what gives me peace is seeing continuity in my daughter's eyes, and in
the eyes of the lives I've been fortunate enough to touch. And I pass on the
continuity of those who came before me, and who have touched my life.
> > Ultimately, this is the psychological maturation people should
> > strive for, not dogma that tells us it has the answer, but strength not to
> need
> > the answer, and to be at peace.
>
> That we cannot know the ineffable does not mean that we cannot hypothesize its
truth and value.
Fair enough. Most people do. But since we cannot know, I believe it to be good
to learn to accept that.
Arlo
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 -
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 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 03:16:01 BST