Hi Steve [Arlo mentioned] --
Arlo has been portraying you as a theist. Do you see yourself as a theist?
Arlo portrays me as a lot of things, "evasive", "distorted", "empty",
"meaningless",
"ridiculous", and "lame-ass" among others. But what really gets his goat is
the notion that I'm promoting theism under the guise of philosophy. Like
others here, Arlo is a virulent anti-theist, albeit a tad more "creative" in
his virulence.
I hold no animosity toward theism, or religiosity either, for that matter.
In fact, I believe philosophers in our nihilistic age have wrongly dismissed
the innate spirituality of man, and it's certainly missing in Pirsig's MoQ.
But to answer your question, no, I do not consider myself a theist. Why?
Because theism is belief in the existence of a god (or gods), typically
characterized as an anthropomorphic being who lays down mandates for the
creatures he created and arbitrarily intercedes to "reward" or "punish"
human behavior.
As an essentialist, I believe that Essence is the uncreated, immutable,
undifferentiated source of experiential existence. I also deny that this
source is capable of finite description. The closest we've come to it is
the logical connotation "Not-other", by which Cusanus in the 15th century
postulated the "coincidence of all contrariety" as his first principle.
That existence is a differentiated system is an empirical fact. That it did
not originate from nothingness is a metaphysical truth. The source of
existence must therefore transcend existence, as well as the relational,
temporal and spacial aspects of experience that frame it. If one chooses to
regard the ultimate source of creation as God because it has a more
spiritual or divine flavor to it, this doesn't thow me into a blinding rage.
But it's not what I understand as theism, or even pantheism.
Though it won't placate Arlo (see his caveat below), I hope this will put an
end to allegations that I am a closet theist with a "hidden agenda" to
inject right-wing religion into Mr. Pirsig's thesis.
Essentially yours,
Ham
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Arlo]
To be fair, I have given Ham every opportunity to explain how this thesis
is not Theism. While he may deny the label (or else find the courage to
embrace it), there is little doubt that the logical end of his thesis is
Theism. In that sense, he wants his cake and he wants to eat it to. He
wants espouse "theism" without the messy "theism" label. So whatever Ham
says about his acceptance or denial of that label, I think its better to
look at what he actually says. The questions I've been asking him (and
he's been evading) reveal plenty.
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/
