From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 19:08:36 BST
Hi Sam --
While you appear to be a defender of the faith, I'm still not sure of your
philosophical position. I find it strange that a believer would express
such a cavalier attitude about the survival of the soul. Isn't that a
cardinal belief of Christianity?
Also, you've probably noted from my postings to Mark and Matt that I am not
pro-religion. My stand on religion has to be neutral, though, because that
is where "spirituality" still lives. I contend that at the core of every
individual's belief system is the expectation that life has some purpose
beyond finite existence. Some deny it, others are unsure, and we all lack
empirical proof.
To me, Philosophy is a non-dogmatic approach to the unknown that draws upon
logic, reason, and sensibility. For Philosophy to dismiss man's core belief
on the ground that it is "faith-based", "non-empirical", or "supernatural"
is intellectually short-sighted and reflects the bias of our culture's
creeping nihilism.
Robert Pirsig has enlightened us to the possibility of a qualitative essence
as the ground of reality which, to me, is a brilliant concept.
Unfortunately, (and I suspect in order to maintain a cult appeal) he has
tied his concept to the evolutionary nature of empirical existence, leaving
it up to his followers to "figure out" the epistemology and ontology of the
MOQ. That may provide a 'fun game' for those who enjoy parsing phrases,
matching up assertions, and trading insults, but it's a problem for those
discerning enough to realize that they have a stake in the answers. That
certainly applies to the "believers" in this group.
I've attempted to demonstrate my Philosophy of Essence as an alternative to
Pirsig's multi-level Quality thesis. The major impediment in this effort is
that, unlike existentialism, Essentialism is anthropocentric; that is, man
is the active, autonomous agent in the metaphysical scheme. And since the
MOQ posits human consciousness as a by-product of an evolutionary Nature,
with no transcendental value or purpose, our theories are proving to be
incompatible.
Admittedly, Essentialism doesn't address some of the elements of your
faith -- "the way of truth and life", "life everlasting", "reward after
death", "resurrection of Christ", for example. These are, indeed, matters
of personal faith that are best left to one's personal religious
inclinations rather than a metaphysical thesis. Ideally, I would want a
"core belief system" to have precedence over religious dogma, and I think
this can be achieved. But at the same time, as philosophers, we can't
afford to carry a chip on our shoulders by way of anti-religious bias. It
impugns the basic concept of a free-thought forum.
You may want to check out an on-line essay I've prepared on "Core Belief"
for my Values Page. It will be posted Sunday and run all next week at
www.essentialism.net/balance.htm .
Thanks for your consideration, Sam. Are we still on the same page?
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 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 21:07:53 BST