Michael, you given me quite a hill to work upward against. You want to discuss but preface by saying you are not open to any new ideas on the subject so lets work from the conclusion of your response to make my meaning clear. "We *cannot* escape culture while remaining human." and " I dare say it is an innate (an not un-importantly notably unique) human drive to seek Quality in existence, Quality that transcends existence." My arguement then using your exact words, if we can not escape culture while remaining human , in other words human existence, then culture defines human existence, therefore transcendence of human existence IS transcendence of culture. Then the innate human drive is to transcend cultural prejudices and move closer to Quality (immediate expereince). If you are proposing, as Ham does that there is meaning and purpose beyond immediate expereince then you are correct Moq rejects it as a culturally derrived prejudice projected towards that immediate experience. Theism is a cultural response to immediate expereince the transcendental expereince cultural prejudices, definitions and explainations flow from. This is a frightening proposition I know, for it leaves everything we know and feel safe about behind. It challnges us to take responsibility for our own expereince and accept the uncertainty of life, this is where "intent" comes into the picture. Forming direction and purpose for ones own life utilizing the most practicale cultural values as they effect our immediate expereince. By asserting your closing phrase "But I'm game to discuss. Change of topic subject?" you imply that you have the arguement sewn up and that your view is THE view end of discussion.. This is the arguement against theists you are illustrating rather well. They refuse to have their assumptions challenged and have difficulty in discussions that ask that they take on a different perspective in order to garner an opposing view and perhaps learn something about their own. sincerely -Ron
________________________________ From: Michael Poloukhine <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:29:05 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Theism/epistemology > Ron said: > You mentioned transcendence, transcendence from cultural definitions, > assumptions > and prejudices. Once this is done, the word God becomes meaningless in a > sense for > how we know this word is defined by culture. Which is the problem and paradox > of > your idea. Even the asterek version brings culture back into the fray which > leads > me to think that God is a cultural word for a culturally transcedent > expereince. > This is why in Hebrew, Gods' name may not be spoken, in Islam the image of > Mohammad > or God may not be depicted, no graven images be made for it brings cultural > prejudice > into it. Both theism and atheism are culturally stigmatized words relaying > the same > cultural prejudices making both terms sort of a non issue in relation to the > MoQ > where belief is formed from practical experience. > > Ron said: > I wanted to add, that given this statement below, ephasizes the importance > of which cultural concepts and how they are chosen to allow how they influence > and color that said experience. Ones that hold practicle consequence in > expereince > having the most value. > > The idea of intent becomes a pivotal topic in this discussion and > one I would like to pursue with you if you are willing. MP: Not sure what remains unclear about my intent in what I said, but discussion is what I am here for, so please, by all means proceed. In advance, however, I should point out that your paraphrasing in the first post leaves me with words in my mouth that were never there. I never said anything about "transcendence of cultural definitions [etc.]" so I'm not sure your seeing an apparent conflict in what I said holds. The conflict is in what you said I said. What I said was: "I do not deny that belief in God is culturally derived. What I am saying is that belief in g*d is deeper than culture. That it is some sort of inner human drive to seek transcendence. I dare say it is an innate (an not un-importantly notably unique) human drive to seek Quality in existence, Quality that transcends existence. That this need becomes manifest in culture and brings us God is not in question, but in its pure form it it is something else (hence: g*d). In my pedantry on this topic I am simply seeking to delve into what that something else is, esp. v.v. MoQ's Quality." *Belief* is a *drive* to *seek* transcendence. Yes, theism is a culturally shaped response. But "to what?" "why g*d and not a rock?" These are the real questions. (Ham's response to my quoted comment btw also *really* summed it up well in different words.) Going forward in anticipation of your questions/propositions; I fail to see how anyone can argue that cultural context precludes a person's ability to either seek transcendence or even attain it in some way. If this is the MoQ argument, then IMO MoQ is screwed from the outset. We *cannot* escape culture while remaining human. But I'm game to discuss. Change of topic subject? 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/ 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/
