[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[kieffer odigaunt]

Hi Arlo,

thanks for your lengthy reply - forgive my usual brevity.

Despite my not being able to get a clear grasp of Ham's idea and it's
possible implications (that is true for the MoQ also though not to the same
extent), nevertheless i respect Ham for his determination to polish and hone
his philosophy and the fact that he rarely descends into insult. Also, he is
the only one in this forum that outright rejects the MoQ; for that reason
you could say his presence here is essential.

-KO

2008/12/11 ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>

> [KO]
> Perhaps Ham is closer to a deist - a God or fundamental particle that does
> its
> bit and then sits back while the universe unfolds - no dogma, no religion.
>
> [Arlo]
> Yeah, I mentioned this in my last post. The problem is, that in Ham's
> cosmology, human consciousness appears in the timeline as the direct result
> of
> willful deliberation on the part of the "Source". And human consciousness
> evolves over time by willful and deliberate "updating" by the "Source".
> Where
> Deism may hold a passive God that sets the ball rolling but sits back and
> has
> no deliberate or intentional intervention with things, Ham's "Source" does
> indeed intervene (when He doles out improved consciousnesses to subsequent
> human generations). And the appearance of consciousness itself is certainly
> interventional by his "Source". So, at best I'd say Ham's "metaphysics" is
> a
> hybrid of Deism and Theism. Nothing wrong with that, as far as metaphors
> go,
> but he should at the least be honest about it. He can peddle theology all
> he
> wants, but to pretend it isn't theology is disingenuous. This is why he
> simply
> will not answer my questions about "how" consciousness evolves, or how it
> appears in the historical timeline. He KNOWS his only recourse to answer is
> the
> finger-snapping appearance brought by his Source, and the doling out of
> "updated models" again by his "Source". But to say this admits to
> Deism/Theism,
> and he will not do that. And so he asks you to "look away", will resort to
> all
> sorts of distractive rhetoric (last time it was a bounce between calling me
> a
> (gasp!) collectivist, nihilist and scientist). And again, despite my being
> a
> "virulent anti-theist", I actually find many Deistic/Theistic metaphors
> quite
> valuable (in a Campbellian or Gnostic sense, or in the sense Pirsig unites
> Quality with The Tao)... but that's another topic.
>
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>