From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 00:40:31 BST
On 13 Jul 2005 at 10:11, Scott Roberts wrote:
[Michael to Ham]
You seem to label most MoQ'ers as nihilists, but how can
>that be, when the MoQ says that values and morals are real - indeed
>that they are built into the fabric of reality?
Paul: I am baffled by Ham's sustained tirade against "the nihilist
MOQ" too. It is as if theism is nihilism's only alternative.
Scott:
I agree with this criticism (of Ham). But I would also ask why do
some MOQists (notably Pirsig) think that the only alternative to
theism is anti-theism?
msh 13 Jul 2005 at 15:49 PST:
What does "anti-theistic" mean, exactly? Wouldn't this suggest an
active denunciation or ongoing attempt to logically invalidate
theism? Where do we find this in Pirsig?
I've always read the Metaphysics of Quality as being NON-theistic, as
explained here in McWatt:
2.3.2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DYNAMIC QUALITY & GOD
Though Pirsig perceives Dynamic Quality as permeating all existence
in a similar vein as an omni-present God, he rejects the idea that
Dynamic Quality consists of a theistic personality. As such, the MOQ
possibly appeals to the person who doesn’t believe in a theistic God
yet isn’t convinced, as Monod (1970) concludes, that the universe is
completely devoid of purpose. In this context, the MOQ maintains a
balance between nihilism and religion in the form of a non-sentient
‘sense of direction’ towards the Good.
"If we think of God as something embodied within, or something which
uses, the law of physics, then the relationship between the vacuum
and the existing universe suggests a God who might be identified with
the basic sense of direction in the unfolding universe - even,
perhaps, with an evolving consciousness within the universe. The
existence of such an ‘immanent God’ would not preclude that of a
transcendent God as well, but, given our knowledge of the universe,
the immanent God (or immanent aspect of God) is more accesible to us.
(Zohar, 1990, p.208)"
Having noted this, it’s worth emphasising Pirsig’s concern (shared by
Enlightenment philosophers) that people are often too ready to
‘worship images of God or take His Name in vain’ (Clark, 2000 p.696).
So though Dynamic Quality is placed as the transcendent source of all
things in the MOQ, Pirsig emphasises that it is non-theistic.
msh 13 Jul 2005 at 15:49 PST:
As for the charge of nihilism, they only way to make this stick (to
the MOQ) is to adopt Ham's highly idiosyncratic use of the term.
For him, it appears that nihilism is any system of thought that
does not start from (and therefore later arrive at) a belief in a
transcendent Creator of the Universe. That is, for Ham, atheism
means nihilism. This is just too remote from the standard definition
of nihilism to be useful in philosophical discussion.
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing
can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme
pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true
nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose
other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. "
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm
Does anyone disagree? Say it ain't so.... :-)
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 History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. - Abba Eban 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 Jul 14 2005 - 00:41:07 BST