On Thurs. 11/4 at 1:36 AM, Ham asked Mark -- Are you with me, Mark?
[Mark replied]:
No, not quite, but I don't subscribe much to utopian ideas. Man is what man is. I know, utter nonsense, but whatever. We still have some discussion to go on "man being the measure of all things". I still do not see the point at which differentiation (negation) occurs by your model. But otherwise I agree with most of what you said. Cultist certainly does have some negativity to it, but rhetoric is key in our discussions. Back to the dismissal of theism. Some in this forum state that Quality cannot be described, because that would encompass it and not truly reflect Quality. That is all good and well, and I have no problem with such a notion. However, what some do not realize is that such a statement is identical to the command given by religions that one will not worship false idols. (I can see Dave turning red, and covering his ears, singing loudly now). In that sense (now Dave and dmb read carefully, in THAT sense), the concept of Quality is similar to the concept of God. Why did Jesus go haywire and destroy a temple, why did the more recent profit prohibit symbols of his god? For exactly the same reason that we do not want to define Quality. They cannot be encapsulated in idols or in words. The words of God are all analogies, again ANALOGIES. To form a concrete definition of such has the same value as defining Quality. It is pre-intellectual, it is intuitive (if you will). To apply logic or science to religion is nonsense. It is charging at windmills. So, if the premise is one of anti-theism, they sure seem awfully similar to me. Perhaps Religion arises out of Quality, but one could also say that Quality comes from God (after all, the concept of God came first). It's all the same man-made creation, just different words.
Mark, if it's alright with you, I'd like to spend our time on a thesis we can agree on, rather than dissect one that gives us problems. I've given up trying to accommodate the fundamentals of Esentialism to Mr. Pirsig's Quality ontology. Obviously, Quality/Value figures prominently in both philosophies; but the effort to make meaningful comparisons requires a major shift in rhetoric, which only adds to the confusion.
Theism is commonly understood as belief in a supernatural entity, and while Essence "transcends" difference and otherness, it does not "stand above" nature or experiential existence. I hold no animus toward theism which, after all, is just another expression of man's need for spiritual completion. In my ontology, the individual self is "estranged" from its absolute source, and this need is sensed as the Value of Essence. The experience generated by value-sensibility is the appearance of a self-subsistent world of finite things and events in process.
We have the resources of physical and biological science to define the principles and dynamics of that world so that we may shape it to our practical needs. Like mathematics and logic, objective science is based solely on empirical knowledge. If we need something more, we must turn to religion, philosophy, or mysticism which are based on intuitive precepts and (to some degree) the faith of the believer. Whether it's Platonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, Judeo-Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Existentialism, Qualityism, or Essentialism, we can derive no value from it unless it has sufficient credibility to warrant our belief.
If the word of God recorded in scripture is analogy, it won't suffice for the believer. If the Prophet's comandments are unconscionable to the Muslim, he will become an Infidel. If the mystic cannot attain Nirvana by the practice of contemplation, he will turn to alternate belief systems. Ultimately, each of us seeks a conception of reality that satisifes our spiritual quest.
One further clarification: A "concept" must be defined in words in order to be conveyed to others. (That's why metaphysics is "nothing but definitions," as Prisig complained.) But a "conception" is one's conceptual understanding, whether it is set in words or equations, analogized, or merely described. This, I submit, is what we are after. The rest is typically philosophology, opinion, polemics, or anecdotal "what I read last night" commentary.
So, again I ask: Are you still with me, Mark? Cheers, 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/md/archives.html
