Matt, Ron, Arlo, Steve, Marsha, and All --
On 9/21/09 at 11:25 PM, Matt said:
Hope is a call to action. Faith seems something more passive.
Faith seems to conceive an ideal, but hope resonates with the
recognition of the disparity between the real and ideal, and
the desire to reconcile the two.
Ron responded with a question about "desire'.
Desire, much to do with desire.
Faith, hope, belief, revolve around it.
What is this desire?
In the parallel thread on 'Imaginings', Arlo quoted Pirsig adding a personal
comment:
"Since the One is the source of all things and includes all things in it,
it
cannot be defined in terms of those things, since no matter what thing
you use to define it, the thing will always describe something less than
the One itself."
All these statements refer to incompleteness. There is no other way
to read "the Allah that can be named is not the real Allah"...
It seems to me you have the elements of a "quest for completeness" here. I
would suggest to Matt that Hope is as passive as Faith, and that Desire
(i.e., wanting) is the active pursuit of mankind. If this is true, then the
highest value sought by man is to be 'One with Reality'. Does anyone
dispute this?
Now, since we are only 'existents', dependent on being for our survival,
logically we cannot both exist and be One with Reality. In fact, the
individual is a divided entity, just as being-aware is divided. The very
state of existing is a dichotomy. You might say, it's a state of
discontent. Because of this discontent, we all want something that
transcends ourselves. The 'impossible dream' has immeasurable value for us
for the precise reason that it is unattainable. This is our existential
paradox. Reunification in the essence of Reality is what hope and faith
aspire to, yet we can only replicate it experientially in this world as
finite objects and events of value. Life is about being estranged from an
absolute source which has many names -- Allah, God, Divine One, Spirit,
Quality -- but only one Essence.
So, you see, there is some fundamental agreement in these disparate
worldviews, if we will pause a moment to consider them. We have a common
goal to build on here beyond mere word games, but we must be willing to
reconcile differences instead of using them to score debating points. That
to me is what a philosophy forum is for.
Does this make sense to you all? (Rebuttals welcome, of course.)
In the spirit of conciliation,
--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/
