[Ham] I don't know if I'm responsible for the creation of Krimel's alter-ego, but here he is back again!
[Krimel] Rest assured you have nothing to do with my ego, altered or otherwise. [Ham] Every philosophy revolves around a central thesis. Mine happens to be the primary source, that without which there is nothing. I cherish life, experience and values as much as anybody else, and I depend on space/time reality and the laws of physics for my being-aware. But these relational contingencies are not self-created or primary to existence. They are conscious phenomena that we intellectually construct to represent the primary source. If that is an apologetic defense of faith in God, then perhaps the priests and clerics should take note. [Krimel] The point is, you offer up nothing worthy of defense and provide no reasons for taking it seriously. You construct it out of thin air, for no good reason and ask us to just "assume" it is true. At least Cardinal Cusa had the church to defend and Eckhart had the whole heresy trial going on. You on the other hand seem driven only by fear of technology and godless existentialists. I'd say both offer more than the bloodless static sterility you advocate. Take the existentialists, at least they insist that each of us 'man up' and take responsibility for the meaning of our lives. To the extent that we can find it outside of ourselves, we must incorporate it into ourselves. It is not to be found on high it is to be discovered here and now. [Ham] No, that's not quite correct. Existential time is illusory, but it is not fixed. History in its totality is a 'fait accompli', yet man never sees it in totality; he sees it as a passing series of events. [Krimel] If you want to persist in this view go for it. But it is a simplistic outdated. [Ham] But objects and events in transition are not fundamental to the primary source (Essence). Essence is neither anthromorphic nor a process. It is absolute and timeless. [Krimel] I prefer to think of it as unnecessary, distracting and metaphysically absurd. [Ham] What I cited as "bliss" was the fact that human beings cannot have direct access to absolute Truth. We cannot know our ultimate fate, or even what tomorrow will bring. We can seek wisdom in this world, but will never find it. We cannot prove that there is a transcendent source, or that some aspect of our individuality is eternal. It is that "ignorance" (Eckhart called it "innocence") which enables us to be free in our choice of values, beliefs, and actions. The paragraph you quoted was to demonstrated that human beings are not robots tracking a programmed course. [Krimel] But only ignorance makes us feel unrobotic. Ignorance does not make is free is it just makes us ignorant. [Ham] That's right. The life-experience is finite, and we dread our own passing, as if we had a "right" to immortality. The alternative is to realize that Value is our inexorable link to Essence, and take joy in our role as its free agent. [Krimel] In your world freedom is a fantasy and we find bliss only by embracing ignorance. We don't become immortal we simply dissolve onto stasis. [Ham] The paradigm of a material universe whose primary constituents are particles of energy that cannot be measured or localized in time and space only demonstrates that quantum physics has exceeded the limits of human experience. How is this a better vision of reality than Newtonian physics? What wisdom has man gained from this exercise? Is one's concept of God expanded by imagining him riding a beam of light? Equations, instruments, and probability theories do not create the universe. What is beyond our ability to experience is beyond our capacity to comprehend empirically. [Krimel] Because Einstein and the others took your charge to imagine the world from a Godlike perspective they pushed back the veil to show us new ways to understand who and what we are. You are clinging to a childish view we learned in elementary and Sunday school. You ask us to hide under the veil like it is some kind of security blanket. [Ham] I'm not preaching "salvation", Case. I am postulating a metaphysical ontology. Since I'm not a fiction writer, I don't have Pirsig's skills at wrapping it up as so many euphemisms in a candy box tied with pretty ribbons. Obviously, my ontology has appeal to only a few, and I cannot expect to sell as many books. But I've lived long enough to know the difference between what is superficial and what is fundamental. And while you and your "owner" strive to make sense of the quantum world of appearances, I shall continue to "take joy" in realizing the value of Essence. [Krimel] But you are preaching. If you would present this as theology I could at least respect it. I would still argue that it is bad theology but we could look at theologians like Polkinghome and Moltmann and at least have an honest discussion. You try to cover up what you are doing with references to Buddhism and mysticism but to my knowledge you have never be straightforward about what your religious convictions are. You want us to think you are some kind of unattached free agent theist. That strong Calvinist streak leads me to think Presbyterian but your scrupulous avoidance of trinitarianism keeps me guessing. By the way keep us posted on book sales. If they take off I will need to stock up on stakes. Your soulless God is horrifying in his indifference, yet laughable in his impotence. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
