[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[David M]

Hi Ham

So much of the below seems to me to fail to grasp
the benefits of the MOQ I wonder why you persist
with talking to us MOQers. What you want to set
up  metaphysically just seems to kick off SOM again
& unnecessarily so.

regards
David M

>
> Hi David --
>
>> You know if you wanted to convince a bunch of MOQers
>> that the below possibility [a deficiency of the MoQ] is one
>> worth considering I'd suggest you'd have to start with the
>> differentiated and relational reality of experience as
>> described by the MOQ and show that this description
>> poses a set of questions/problems that need to be
>> answered or solved by what you suggest.
>
> David, the problem you have outlined is so complex, and the MoQ is so
> different an approach to philosophy, that I've long since given up the 
> idea
> of trying to incorporate it into Essentialism.
>
> To follow your suggestion, I would have to assign levels & patterns to
> processes of nature and evolution which are far too diversified for such
> parsing.  Besides, Essentialism is founded on an undifferentiated source
> which needs only to actualize "difference" to create the appearance of a
> physical universe.  Whatever partitioning or categorization of existence
> occurs is a function of the cognitive intellect, not nature or quality
> (value).  The inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual patterns of the
> MoQ have no more philosophical significance than any other four-level
> classification.  For example, I could divide my realty into substantive,
> psychic, quantitative, and mechanical; but to what end?  Existence is
> patently manifested as objects, events, organisms, and thoughts; but so
> what?  It doesn't prove anything or add to our understanding of the 
> meaning
> or purpose of life.
>
> The only meaningful division I see as having any potential for 
> understanding
> is the difference between
> subjective awareness and objective otherness.  But this is plain old S/O
> reality, which the MoQers insist is "static" and "low-quality"
> comprehension.  They need something more, but they are averse to a
> transcendent source on the ground that "supernaturalism" is unscientific 
> and
> regressive.  So instead, they hypothesize a "dynamic" system of levels 
> that
> controls the whole universe, supposedly moving it to a higher state of
> "betterness".  Where does that leave man with his exquisite sense of 
> values,
> morality, and intellectual capability?  Indeed, as Sartre once suggested,
> "the universe would get along just as well without him."
>
> For me, any philosophy that dismisses metaphysics is nothing but a
> euphemistic paradigm without a creator, a purpose, or a rationale for the
> Experience which Pirsig equates with Reality.  Likewise, a philosopher who
> rejects the individual as the vital locus of reality so that he can
> "overcome" duality has aligned himself with objectivism.  That this view 
> of
> reality must be understood and accepted on the basis of what "Pirsig says"
> has led to the circular debates that go on endlessly here.  The best I can
> do, it would seem, is to offer some fundamental concepts for 
> consideration,
> and allow the MoQuists to determine which, if any, may be compatible with
> Pirsig's thesis.
>
> Your suggestions are sincerely appreciated, David, but I think you can
> understand my dilemma.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
> 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/
>