Michael's immanent Value vs. Ron's collective Culture --
[Michael, defining Value as primary]: > 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 [Ron, defending Culturalism as primary]: > ...let's 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 argument 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 experience). If you are proposing, as Ham > does that there is meaning and purpose beyond immediate experience > then you are correct Moq rejects it as a culturally derived prejudice > projected towards that immediate experience. There are many things we cannot escape as human beings--our physical bodies, our mortality, our dependence on air and water, and our perception of reality as a series of events. Our response to, or acceptance of, the behavior and influence of others (i.e., culture) may be one of them, but less so for the hermit or monastic who is isolated from society. What Michael is describing is an innate desire for transcendence--not from culture, but from the limited, "conditional" status of human existence. The individual by choice can always make himself a part of his culture. He cannot, despite his longing, make himself one with his Creator. This truth is known only to man who senses it as Value. It is a "primary" sensibility that is proprietary to the individual, not to the "collective intelligentsia". It is not passed down as cultural myths or religious doctrines. One doesn't come upon it by interacting with his fellow creatures. And those who don't acknowledge it are ignorant of the fact that the relative values realized in everyday life reference objective phenomena -- existential entities which they themselves synthesize (intellectualize) from fundamental Value. [Ron continues, trapping himself in his own logic]: > 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 asterisk version brings culture back into the > fray which leads me to think that God is a cultural word for a > culturally transcendent experience. How the word God is "defined" does not affect either the concept or the reality of a transcendent source. As Michael said above, " belief in g*d is deeper than culture." So, whatever "culture" implies to Ron, it cannot make the word God meaningless. Indeed, the "essence" of belief is the sensible Value that is primary to human experience. If you understood man as an essentialist does, you would not have made this error. The metaphysical nature of man is value-sensibility. This takes precedence over being-aware, sensory experience, conceptualization, or cultural influences. [Ron also says]: > I wanted to add, that given this statement below, emphasizes the > importance of which cultural concepts and how they are chosen > to allow how they influence and color that said experience. Ones > that hold practical consequence in experience having the most value. Since the fundamental source of existence is absolute, comparative description (e.g., something having "more or less value") does not apply. Which is why, as Cusanus postulated, the only logically valid definition by which to connote the Primary Source is "Not-other". (Michael will be pleased to note that Cusa's First Principle is actually a transcendent concept.) In summary, the argument here is hopeless because it concerns two "belief systems": Michael's belief is centered on an immanent, transcendent Creator, whereas Ron is hung up with the collectivist view that the individual is a creation of an evolving Culture. Never the twain shall meet. (Just thought I'd point this out before you become really annoyed with each other.) Thanks, Ham 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/
