Greetings, I have great respect for your participation on this list and all that you say.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 3:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] [Bulk] Re: The case for an Uncreated Source On 7/31/09 at 12:31 PM Marsha asks Ham . . . 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. Marsha: The third sentence above with the 'assume' is a problem. That assumption is a part of your reality, but not mine. I have no problem equating experience and awareness and Quality. I do not know how you define 'spirituality', if you mean 'a belief in god', I have no need of a god, and a genuine distain for the Abrahamic version. If you mean is there joy and wonderment in my experience, I'd say yes there is a spirituality in my experience. You will need to define what you personally mean by 'spirituality', but then that would make it intellectual. Ham: 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. Marsha: Should? Why? Man is not so hot, far too egocentric, actually quite mentally defective. Ham: 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. Marsha: Are you asking why a pattern occurs? Ham: 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. Marsha: Mr. Pirsig's struggle was/is my struggle to stop struggling, to create "betterness". Ham: 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. Marsha: Peter Williams' point-of-view on aesthetics was interesting, but mine is "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." Ham: 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. Marsha: I've been rejecting many patterns lately, so "God" and "theism" are just two among many. Not God. Not theism. Ham: Sorry to have troubled you, Marsha. Marsha: I enjoy discussing the MoQ with you, but sometimes do not agree with you. Your point-of-view doesn't match my experience, but I appreciate a diversity of opinion and value yours as yours. I do not take an appreciation of Beauty, Goodness, and Freedom for granted, I equate them to direct experience. Most respectfully, Marsha > -----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/ 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/
