[MD] A Quest in the Mechanical Garden

[Krimel]

[Ham]
I don't know if I'm responsible for the creation of Krimel's alter-ego, but 
here he is back again!

[Krimel]
Rest assured you have nothing to do with my ego, altered or otherwise.

[Ham]
Every philosophy revolves around a central thesis.  Mine happens to be the 
primary source, that without which there is nothing.  I cherish life, 
experience and values as much as anybody else, and I depend on space/time 
reality and the laws of physics for my being-aware.  But these relational 
contingencies are not self-created or primary to existence.  They are 
conscious phenomena that we intellectually construct to represent the 
primary source.  If that is an apologetic defense of faith in  God, then 
perhaps the priests and clerics should take note.

[Krimel]
The point is, you offer up nothing worthy of defense and provide no reasons
for taking it seriously. You construct it out of thin air, for no good
reason and ask us to just "assume" it is true. At least Cardinal Cusa had
the church to defend and Eckhart had the whole heresy trial going on.

You on the other hand seem driven only by fear of technology and godless
existentialists. I'd say both offer more than the bloodless static sterility
you advocate.

Take the existentialists, at least they insist that each of us 'man up' and
take responsibility for the meaning of our lives. To the extent that we can
find it outside of ourselves, we must incorporate it into ourselves. It is
not to be found on high it is to be discovered here and now.

[Ham]
No, that's not quite correct.  Existential time is illusory, but it is not 
fixed.  History in its totality is a 'fait accompli', yet man never sees it 
in totality; he sees it as a passing series of events.  

[Krimel]
If you want to persist in this view go for it. But it is a simplistic
outdated.

[Ham]
But objects and events in transition are not fundamental to the primary
source (Essence). 
Essence is neither anthromorphic nor a process.  It is absolute and 
timeless. 

[Krimel]
I prefer to think of it as unnecessary, distracting and metaphysically
absurd.
 
[Ham]
What I cited as "bliss" was the fact that human beings cannot 
have direct access to absolute Truth.  We cannot know our ultimate fate, or 
even what tomorrow will bring.  We can seek wisdom in this world, but will 
never find it.  We cannot prove that there is a transcendent source, or that

some aspect of our individuality is eternal.
It is that "ignorance" (Eckhart called it "innocence") which enables us to 
be free in our choice of values, beliefs, and actions.  The paragraph you 
quoted was to demonstrated that human beings are not robots tracking a 
programmed course.

[Krimel]
But only ignorance makes us feel unrobotic. Ignorance does not make is free
is it just makes us ignorant.

[Ham]
That's right.  The life-experience is finite, and we dread our own passing, 
as if we had a "right" to immortality. The alternative is to realize that 
Value is our inexorable link to Essence, and take joy in our role as its 
free agent.

[Krimel]
In your world freedom is a fantasy and we find bliss only by embracing
ignorance. We don't become immortal we simply dissolve onto stasis.

[Ham]
The paradigm of a material universe whose primary constituents are particles

of energy that cannot be measured or localized in time and space only 
demonstrates that quantum physics has exceeded the limits of human 
experience.  How is this a better vision of reality than Newtonian physics? 
What wisdom has man gained from this exercise?  Is one's concept of God 
expanded by imagining him riding a beam of light?  Equations, instruments, 
and probability theories do not create the universe.  What is beyond our 
ability to experience is beyond our capacity to comprehend empirically.

[Krimel]
Because Einstein and the others took your charge to imagine the world from a
Godlike perspective they pushed back the veil to show us new ways to
understand who and what we are. You are clinging to a childish view we
learned in elementary and Sunday school. You ask us to hide under the veil
like it is some kind of security blanket.

[Ham]
I'm not preaching "salvation", Case.  I am postulating a metaphysical 
ontology.  Since I'm not a fiction writer, I don't have Pirsig's skills at 
wrapping it up as so many euphemisms in a candy box tied with pretty 
ribbons.  Obviously, my ontology has appeal to only a few, and I cannot 
expect to sell as many books.  But I've lived long enough to know the 
difference between what is superficial and what is fundamental.  And while 
you and your "owner" strive to make sense of the quantum world of 
appearances, I shall continue to "take joy" in realizing the value of 
Essence.

[Krimel]
But you are preaching. If you would present this as theology I could at
least respect it. I would still argue that it is bad theology but we could
look at theologians like Polkinghome and Moltmann and at least have an
honest discussion. You try to cover up what you are doing with references to
Buddhism and mysticism but to my knowledge you have never be straightforward
about what your religious convictions are. You want us to think you are some
kind of unattached free agent theist. That strong Calvinist streak leads me
to think Presbyterian but your scrupulous avoidance of trinitarianism keeps
me guessing.

By the way keep us posted on book sales. If they take off I will need to
stock up on stakes. Your soulless God is horrifying in his indifference, yet
laughable in his impotence.