[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[kieffer odigaunt]

Hi Arlo,

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

> Yeah, I mentioned this in my last post.


Sorry, i didnt notice that - another case of great minds!


> 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).


I had not gleaned this from Ham's sayings - if his 'essence' is undefinable
it is also a contradiction as it obviously has will.


> 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.


Ham will say we havent understood.


> 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.


Yes that is very disingenuous of him.


> 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).


He called an earlier incarnation of me 'nihilist' also - that is vv bad in
his view I think.

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.



I, too, am trying lately to admit spirituality back into my thinking - but
not without relinquishing my atheistic stance.
In line with the MoQ I reject the dualistic stance; this however does not
dispell the fact that my mind seems to be separate and above my body.
We are predisposed to view the world as consisting of separate objects and
ourselves as a body and a mind - even if science tells us that this not
actually how things are.

-KO