[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
Arlo portrays me as a lot of things, "evasive"...

[Arlo]
If you'd actually ANSWER the questions I pose, maybe I wouldn't have 
to characterize you as evasive. What say you, should I repost the 
questions again and you'll answer them? Or would that be simply 
another exercise in futility.

[Ham]
"distorted"...

[Arlo]
No, but good example of what I DO say. What I've said is that you are 
"distortive" of what I say. Biiiiig difference. And a shiny example.

[Ham]
"empty", "meaningless", "ridiculous", and "lame-ass" among others...

[Arlo]
I've said that ANY metaphysics "that runs counter to, or makes no 
sense from, a historical perspective is as empty as it is 
meaningless". And yes, I do think that ANY metaphysics that posits a 
"needy God who creates man so that there would be beings to marvel at 
its magnificence" demonstrates a pretty lame-ass reason for creation. 
The reason we are here is to serve the vanity of a lonely Source? Please.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
As I expected, you deny the label. One needs only to read your words, 
a Primary Source who creates man to fill a void is its 
need-to-be-adored vanity, a model of evolving consciousness based on 
a "Source" that doles out new and updated models of consciousness to 
successive generations of humans. The appearance of said 
consciousness into the timeline in what can only be described as 
"Poof! There it is!"

Yes, your particular theism lacks the vengeful Deity "fire and 
brimstone" that adds color to other theistic models, and perhaps a 
better descriptor of your model is "Deism" (which itself is, of 
course, theism, but lacks the specificity of culture in other 
theistic approaches).

And while we are talking about mischaracterizations, let me remind 
you (and Steve) that while I am a "virulent anti-theist" (a 
characterization I'll let stand) I am by no means "anti-spiritual", 
indeed quite the opposite. I have, typically, no quarrel with 
theistic metaphors (or even Deistic ones) so long as that is the 
canvas they paint on. Where I have troubles is with a "metaphysics" 
that buries its head in the sand (or tries to bury YOURS) when its 
theistic approach are revealed.

To repeat, YOUR metaphysics claims that "consciousness evolves". But 
yet at every turn and attempt to get you to articulate a "how" to 
this claim, you have ducked and ran and tried to instead change the 
topic to "Arlo the collectivist" or "Arlo the scientist". You seem to 
feel the question is unfair, that articulating a process to describe 
your claim is not only unimportant but one you actively seek to move 
FROM. Yet, you have no troubles denouncing others who have speculated 
on this "how". As I said the nearest I can come to how your 
metaphysics accounts for the evolving consciousness of man is that 
"Essence doles out improved models over time."

But this "how" also has metaphysical ramifications. Why would a 
perfect Essence not get it right the first time? Why the need to 
spend millions of years dealing with a primitive "man"? (And those 
lovable dinos, what was their purpose? Why were they here? To make us 
oil?) If this Source needed to be loved, as you claim, why could it 
not have simply made man as man is now? So given your claim, it is 
fair to ask "why" your needy Immutable Source gave our primitive 
ancestors a lesser consciousness. You must account for this or, as 
I've said, champion a metaphysics that runs counter to history, or is 
made absurd by history, or simply asks you to do what other theistic 
accounts do, and that is "look away". Well, again, not I.