Dave Quotes Sir William:
> > "The theistic conception, picturing God and his creation as entities > distinct from each other, Ok, that's one metaphysical conception I guess. There are others. This particular one doesn't make sense to me. What is meant by "entities distinct"? Isn't that kind of a SOM way of looking at it? ---------- ...An orthodox theism has been so jealous of God's glory that it has taken pains to exaggerate everything in the notion of him that could make for isolation and separateness. -------------- I'd agree. The metaphysical errors of "orthodox" theism are as rampant as those in orthodox science and orthodox Academia. I'm personally not much of a fan of orthodoxy in any of it's instantiations. --------------------- Page upon page in scholastic books go to prove that God is in so sense implicated by his creative act, or involved in his creation. That this relation to the creatures he has made should make any difference to him, carry any consequence, or qualify his being, is repudiated as a pantheistic slur upon his self-sufficingness. ----------------------- Seventh Day Zen Rastafarians might well be construed as Pantheists. But Biocentrism overthrows the traditional meaning of the term in ways that make the term meaningless. -------------------------- His action can affect us, but he can never be affected by our reaction. ...This essential d > ualism of the theistic view has all sorts of collateral consequences. Man > being an outsider and a mere subject to God, not his intimate partner, a > character of externality invades the field." > (William James in A PLURALISTIC UNIVERSE) > Well done, WJ, an analytic refutation of the existence of God in a SOM universe. I agree completely. > > On top of the main point, which is to show that James does not endorse mere > utility, I'd also point out that the "essential dualism of the theistic > view" that make man "extraneous to both the world and himself" has SOM as > one of its collateral consequences. I mean, the idea that we (subjects) are > ontologically distinct from the world (objective reality) has grown almost > directly out of theism. In fact, elsewhere James says that the Cartesian > subject is a quasi-secularized version of the Christian soul. It occurs to > me now that the notion of one eternal Truth beyond the grasp of we mere > mortals is common to both theism and scientific materialism. > Better late than never, I suppose. So you think SOM arises from Christianity, eh? They've been buddies for so long I could see where you might get that shallow, surface impression. But to really understand the relationship, you'd have to know a lot more about the bible than you do, and to understand the arising of SOM you'd have to pay closer attention to Pirsig, and not just the parts you like think support your prechosen views. > I mean, there are lots of philosophical reasons for rejecting theism and > it's not just a coincidence that they overlap with the reasons for rejecting > SOM. But apparently there are people who think theism is somehow a better > option than scientific materialism and because Pirsig rejects scientific > materialism, they imagine they'll find some comfort in the MOQ, some > sympathy for their theism. The philosophical mysticism might make it look > even more tempting to a theist, but those sections of Lila are actually > where we find the MOQ's most elaborate anti-theistic arguments. I really > don't think it can be done. Given all that, it seems to me that trying to > squeeze an endorsement of theism out of Pirsig's isn't just incorrect, it's > also kinda sleazy. > You know what's sleazy Dave? That thing you talked about in a previous post - that "projection" thing that you alluded to. Demonizing, is another good term. Construing demons in your own head to have an external reality in others that you then fight like hell (!) against. The philosophical term "straw man", is inadequate to describe what's going on, because setting up a strawman is actually an argumentative technique, whereas projection is different, a psychological phenomena wherein the projector actually believes in the reality of patterns projected upon others. Fascinating. > > The thing is, there is quite a bit of amazing wisdom on spiritual matters > in there. If there is a hunger for such things and you're willing to drop > the theism just long enough to listen to what Pirsig actually says about, > what other mystics actually say, I think you'll find something gooder. > Well keep preaching it, Brother Dave. Maybe there are souls out there hungry for the pap you dispense. I personally have no idea if God really exists apart from my own ideas, but I do know my own ideas exist. Somehow your reassurance that you know everything there is to be known on the subject and thus can reject my ideas, rings hollow to me. If you came across as a little more intelligent, a little more thoughtful, I'd be inclined to pay attention, Heck, even eloquently wrong would be entertainment I suppose. Or stubbornly creative, like Bo. But this continual flailing against the windmills of your own mind would be just boring if it wasn't so antagonistic. Since it is antagonistic, and directed against your own self, it's kind of interesting but also a little pathetic. But hey, good luck with that, all the same. John 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/
