On 7/31/09 at 12:31 PM Marsha asks Ham . . .
Does my thinking differently [than] you warrant such assumptions?
I don't know what assumptions you are referring to, Marsha.
The article from which I quoted is titled "Aesthetic Arguments for the
Existence of God." You say, "I am so an atheist that it was difficult to
concentrate on the words," then proceed to recite Pirsig's equivalency
statement. I assume only that, as an atheist, you see no need for
spirituality in your life and are content to equate quality with experience.
All I'm saying is that a "metaphysical" philosophy should be more than this.
It should present an ontology that accounts for the origin of existence and
explain man's role in the universe. I don't see that Mr. Pirsig has done
either. He has euphemized Reality as Quality, of which subjects and objects
are patterns, without positing their genesis or man's contribution to the
Quality hierarchy. The two novels are "feel good" prose that give us some
insight into his personal struggles as a philosopher, but leave us hanging
in a universe that moves automatically to "betterness" with no meaning or
purpose for man other than to somehow rise above its organic and social
levels.
Certainly aesthetic appreciation is a major component of a value-based
philosophy, which is why I thought Peter Williams' essay would be a welcome
read, especially for the artists in this forum. Either I was mistaken or
the article was construed as a pitch for theism on my part, which it is not.
What sparked my interest in this concept was its support for an uncreated
source, as the author suggests: "the origin of things is to be found, in the
uncreated, which is the source of all creation." What I didn't expect was
that the word "God" or "theism" would be so abhorrent to Pirsigians that
they would reject the concept out of hand.
Sorry to have troubled you, Marsha.
Regards,
Ham
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
Dear Marsha --
Greetings Ham,
It is only respect for you that I even skimmed the Williams article.
I am so an atheist that it was difficult to concentrate on the words.
Experience is Quality, experiencing beauty is Quality, experiencing
joy is Quality. There is no need for theist explanation, or scientific
explanation, for that matter, intellectual explanations only denigrate
the experience. Imho. It is a MU thing, beyond division, labels,
description and definition. There is no need for an understanding
of purpose or primary source. It is not this, not that.
I understand your reluctance to consider the meaning of Quality (Value)
and
to simply enjoy the experience of it. I'm also aware that "theism" is
anathema to elitist philosophers who want us to believe they've overcome
the
dogma of an "unenlightened age".
However, there is a spiritual need in the heart of every human being, and
philosophy is the intellectual way to explore it. In my opinion, it's a
shame to overlook a metaphysical approach to understanding by applying
'MU'
labels and taking our appreciation of Beauty, Goodness, and Freedom for
granted. The "need for an understanding of purpose and source" is an
important (probably the most important) part of the life-experience.
As an artist, surely you must have acquainted yourself with the pallet
colors, perspective, and spacial relationships that make a portrait or
landscape appealing on canvas. Whether you've taken formal courses or
simply enjoy it as a hobby, you study painting as an art form. Why not
extend this aesthetic interest to the universe you live in and consider
its
metaphysical origins? Isn't that what philosophy is all about? Why
dismiss
the meaning and purpose of what you've learned to love as meaningless
speculation?
I enjoy the creative arts, too -- especially classical music, which I
studied in my youth. And I have not found that "intellectual explanations
denigrate the experience." On the contrary, understanding what Value
really
is, emotionally and metaphysically, has enhanced my aesthetic enjoyment
and
led me to the pursuit of a valuistic philosophy. This is far more
fulfilling for me than religion, mysticism, and scientific explanations
which rule out an uncreated source.
Please understand, I'm not trying to sell you Philosophy as a bill of
goods.
I'm only suggesting that a spiritualistic worldview can expand your
philosophical (and esthetic) horizons.
Thanks for responding, Marsha, and best wishes.
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/
