Hi John (Tim quoted) --
First, I must apologize for crediting Ian on 11/14 for this comment of
yours:
[John]:
The trouble as I see with labeling the MoQ plainly atheist, is as I told
Dan, the MoQ is no more anti-theistic than it is anti-theory-of-gravity.
People come up with ideas to deal with their world. The MoQ says
they do this as a function of Quality. What the MoQ is against, is
assigning objectivity to subjective ideas about reality. Or reification,
in simpler term. And what usually goes by the name "atheist" does this
just as much as any theism you can name. Which is why I have no
peace of mind with the term "atheist".
I agree that the label "atheist" should not be applied to the MoQ, despite
the fact that Mr. Pirsig himself
declared his philosophy "atheistic" in the Copleston Annotations. (Perhaps
"non-theist" would be a more appropriate description.) I disagree, however,
that "subjective ideas" about reality, which are the only ideas we can have,
should not be regarded as objective. Unless what you mean by "assigning
objectivity" is making a "concrete object" (i.e., being) out if a idea,
ultimately the reality we are conceptualizing must relate to a true source
or essence. If not, then metaphysics is a waste of our time.
This is an important consideration, John -- particularly in that we are
trying to define something we cannot directly experience. Unfortunately for
philosophers, the "ineffable" must remain a conception of human
understanding; yet "how" we conceive it cannot be left to faith, mysticism,
or dogma. Our conception of the Creator or Primary Source must in the final
analysis account for awareness, difference, plurality, and the appearance of
material reality.
With this in mind, I'd like to address the issues raised in two recent
comments
[John asked]:
But Ham? What about "value must be realized by a valuing agent to be
real?" Is not the creator just as dependent upon his creation for his
being, as his creation is dependent upon Him? Without a created realizer,
all this essence is just sitting around and contemplating nothing, being
realized by nothing. Is nothing, in other words. Thus, I'd challenge
your
"absolute dependency" and change it to "absolute co-dependency".
I didn't mean to infer that Value is not "real", but rather that it can
"exist" only differentially -- as the "co-dependent" link between subject
and object. Which means that whatever represents value to the observer will
necessarily be finite and transitional, just as experience is always
diversified and relational. One of the problems I have in articulating my
ontology is the fact that there are two modes of reality. What I call
"existence" is the compartmentalized or fractional mode better known to
Pirsigians as SOM. I define existence as "the pluralistic physical world
that is localized in time and space." Essence, on the other hand, is "the
ultimate, unconditional source of all that is or can be."
John, I do not believe the Creator is dependent on creation for "his being".
For one thing, "being" is not the domain or province of Essence. Also, what
is absolute and self-sufficient cannot logically be dependent.on another.
That said, I do believe the negation of individualized value-sensibility may
be thought as "completing" or "perfecting" Essence by some teleology that I
have not fully conceptualized but can express only as "affording the means
whereby Absolute Essence may be realized externally by a "free agent".
[Tim said]:
...I wasn't suggesting that the 'already absolute' was dynamic, per se.
The point was that there is no reference to say either way. If the
absolute
desired to remain constant, it would have no way to go about doing so,
and it would have no way of knowing if it were succeeding. The point is
that both those terms are relational, like you say, and thus have no
meaning to the 'already absolute'. Thus it need not be, and in fact it
cannot be, constrained that way.
if the 'already absolute' wants any dynamism (anything at all - beyond
itself - I think, as I see the 'already absolute' as a pitiful and
wretched
state), it must invite relationship in.
I don't see a problem with an eternal creator "remaining constant". Nor can
I understand why you characterize the absolute state as "pitiful and
wretched". In fact, you have no grounds to support such a view. This is in
effect complaining that Perfection is confining or boring. How would you
know, Tim? What state of perfection have you attained as a mortal
creature?
Much more troublesome for me is explaining how diversity and change emerge
from constancy or immutability. My own hypothesis is that the very nature
of Essence is "negational", so that creation itself is constant and ongoing.
I also feel that Pirsig's insistence that DQ is "dynamic" while SQ is
"static" is inverted. Our experiential world is in continuous flux, and the
universe is always evolving. We live in a time continuum where things not
only come and go but relate to each other according to principles that are
dynamic in every sense, whether analyzed biologically, physically, or
psychologically.
Conversely, there is no logical or metaphysical reason to assume that the
primary source is subject to the dynamics of finitude. Indeed, the concept
of eternality has been applied to the Creator for thousands of years. It
symbolizes the "peace" of God, and being "at rest" with one's Maker, in the
context of "Foreverness". What better description of an unconditional
("static") source has our language produced?
Essentially speaking,
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
