[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
This is not a trick question, Arlo.  What is ultimately real for 
you?  Is it a symbol?  A process?  An 
event?  Experience?  Awareness?  Mythos? Goodness? Let's be clear 
about this: If you don't acknowledge a reality of some kind, there's 
no basis from which to proceed with an ontological discussion.

[Arlo]
All of these things, and God, Buddha, the Tao, Brahman, and Quality. 
And Essence. All of things are metaphorical representations of what 
is ultimately beyond expression. I find the Quality metaphor most 
appealing, on an intuitive and also pragmatic level.

[Ham]
Okay, I guess the design aspect has been discussed.  One problem I 
have with evolutionary "progress" is that it's time-based.  For me, 
space/time is the mode of human experience, the "serialized" 
perspective of existence whose dimensions are intellectualized 
constructs.  So, 'ex post facto' is what counts, not the means of 
getting us here.

[Arlo]
Unless I read you wrong, I think we agree.

[Ham]
In a sense we all do; and I tend to be more artistic than scientific, 
despite my effort to conceal it.  As a technical point, my Absolute 
is not "external" but immanent, which is another important 
distinction between the God of religion and the philosophy of Essence.

[Arlo]
I think, but could be wrong, that one of the central aims of 
mysticism (across a wide variety of religions) is to show that "God" 
is not an external "thing" but immanent. As far as I know, this was 
also a major part of many Amerindian traditions.

[Ham]
Do you accept my view that Value (Quality) is subjective?  (Give it 
some thought before you answer.)

[Arlo]
Why do you ask this, Ham? You know full well my reply is going to be 
that Quality comes before objects and subjects.