From: Mark Steven Heyman (MarkHeyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 06:19:18 BST
On 14 Apr 2005 at 20:48, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
wim summarizes ham:
Do I miss something essential when I summarize your essay at
www.essentialism.net/balance.htm in the following quotes?
1) 'the rejection of transcendence deprives at least 16% of our population
of any meaning or purpose for the life-experience'
ham:
If the Harris poll is correct, 84% of adult Americans believe in some form
of "psychic continuity" following physical death. That would leave 16%
without such a belief.
msh:
So 16% of the population does not belive in life after death. How
does this deprive them "of any meaning or purpose for the life-
experience." Wim gave numerous examples of how people who don't
believe in an afterlife nevertheless believe their life-experience
has meaning. You assume life has no meaning if it is not eternal,
which is just one example of your stealth theism being lit up by
philosophy's radar. Do you assume life has no meaning if it is not
eternal?
ham says, wim wonders:
2) 'man is the only animal equipped to contemplate his fate and
discriminate among life's values'
ham:
What is your problem with that? Do you believe there's another known
creature capable of contemplating its fate?
msh says:
To say man is the only creature capable of contemplating its fate is
to state a metaphysical assumption, not a fact, by your own
definition of the word "fact." What factual basis to you have for
making this assumption? Or are you simply asking us to believe this
in order to make your metaphysics viable?
ham says:
3) 'were we to have a choice to continue in any form thereafter, it would
be only natural to choose affirmatively'
ham defends:
This has proven to be true, based on the responses I've been getting from my
immediate associates as well as the MoQ MD.
msh says:
This is manifestly false, based on the same responses. Not everyone
opted for continuity in any form. You ignore evidence contrary to
your position in order to claim your position "has been proven true,"
Or have I misunderstood your comment above?
ham says:
4) 'it is survival over death ... which represents the core of man's
belief system'
ham embellishes:
That is my contention. I can't see any other factor that registers with the
impact of personal transcendence in some form.
msh says:
Well, by your own arguable stats, this "core of belief" exists for
only 84% of humanity. But belief, no matter how prevalent, cannot
be a sufficient condition for knowledge, unless your idea of
knowledge allows for contradictory "truths." Do you agree?
ham tells us the meaning of our beliefs:
5) 'If you believe that your conscious awareness 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.'
ham attempts clarification:
Inasmuch as nihilism is the rejection of values or meaning, I see no
inconsistency in that statement.
msh says:
This reflects a sophomoric or deliberatlely over-simplified and
pejorative uderstanding of the term "nihilism." Your use of the word
as the ultimate negative stems from your stealth theistic belief that
one's life has meaning and value only if it persists beyond the
dissolution of the physical body. Wim has given you plenty of
counter examples to your "core belief." Your invention of the
dimunitive phrase "secondary immortality" is non-responsive. Do you
believe that life has value only if it persists beyond physical
death?
ham states:
6) 'I see the thrust of philosophy today as a futile effort to make
nihilism credible. There is no extension of consciousness beyond death, except in
the "collective" or socio-biological sense'
and ham adds:
Again, I think this statement is self-evident.
msh says:
See above. The statement is not at all self-evident and reflects a
very limited understanding of the word "nihilism."
ham says and wim agrees:
7) 'For the Essentialist, the logic of evolutionary theory is quite
compatible with a supernatural Source.'
ham adds:
Since I am the author of Essentialism, I endorse this statement.
msh says:
An Essentialist may indeed believe in this compatibility. But
others, Paul Davies and other Logical Positivists for example, do
not. See my comments above re the relationship between belief and
knowledge.
ham to wim:
8) 'So long as we insist in believing that there ... is no reality apart
from the physical world, that there is no primary cause or ultimate
meaning ... we are doomed to fulfill Nietzsche's prophecy of a
culture without belief, a life without purpose.'
msh says:
Although I want to track down the context of Nietzsche's quote, off
the top of my head I'll say culture without belief is impossible; a
life lived without purpose is a choice.
Best to all,
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
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." --
Henri Poincare'
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 15 2005 - 06:20:40 BST