[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Steve [Arlo mentioned] --



> Arlo has been portraying you as a theist. Do you see yourself as a theist?

Arlo portrays me as a lot of things, "evasive", "distorted", "empty", 
"meaningless",
"ridiculous", and "lame-ass" among others.  But what really gets his goat is 
the notion that I'm promoting theism under the guise of philosophy.  Like 
others here, Arlo is a virulent anti-theist, albeit a tad more "creative" in 
his virulence.

I hold no animosity toward theism, or religiosity either, for that matter. 
In fact, I believe philosophers in our nihilistic age have wrongly dismissed 
the innate spirituality of man, and it's certainly missing in Pirsig's MoQ. 
But to answer your question, no, I do not consider myself a theist. Why? 
Because theism is belief in the existence of a god (or gods), typically 
characterized as an anthropomorphic being who lays down mandates for the 
creatures he created and arbitrarily intercedes to "reward" or "punish" 
human behavior.

As an essentialist, I believe that Essence is the uncreated, immutable, 
undifferentiated source of experiential existence.  I also deny that this 
source is capable of finite description.  The closest we've come to it is 
the logical connotation "Not-other", by which Cusanus in the 15th century 
postulated the "coincidence of all contrariety" as his first principle. 
That existence is a differentiated system is an empirical fact.  That it did 
not originate from nothingness is a metaphysical truth.  The source of 
existence must therefore transcend existence, as well as the relational, 
temporal and spacial aspects of experience that frame it.  If one chooses to 
regard the ultimate source of creation as God because it has a more 
spiritual or divine flavor to it, this doesn't thow me into a blinding rage. 
But it's not what I understand as theism, or even pantheism.

Though it won't placate Arlo (see his caveat below), I hope this will put an 
end to allegations that I am a closet theist with a "hidden agenda" to 
inject right-wing religion into Mr. Pirsig's thesis.

Essentially yours,
Ham

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> [Arlo]
> To be fair, I have given Ham every opportunity to explain how this thesis 
> is not Theism. While he may deny the label (or else find the courage to 
> embrace it), there is little doubt that the logical end of his thesis is 
> Theism. In that sense, he wants his cake and he wants to eat it to. He 
> wants espouse "theism" without the messy "theism" label. So whatever Ham 
> says about his acceptance or denial of that label, I think its better to 
> look at what he actually says. The questions I've been asking him (and 
> he's been evading) reveal plenty.