[MD] [Bulk] Re: The case for an Uncreated Source

[Ham Priday]

On 7/31/09 at 12:31 PM Marsha asks Ham . . .


> Does my thinking differently [than] you warrant such assumptions?

I don't know what assumptions you are referring to, Marsha.

The article from which I quoted is titled "Aesthetic Arguments for the 
Existence of God."  You say, "I am so an atheist that it was difficult to 
concentrate on the words," then proceed to recite Pirsig's equivalency 
statement.  I assume only that, as an atheist, you see no need for 
spirituality in your life and are content to equate quality with experience.

All I'm saying is that a "metaphysical" philosophy should be more than this. 
It should present an ontology that accounts for the origin of existence and 
explain man's role in the universe.  I don't see that Mr. Pirsig has done 
either.  He has euphemized Reality as Quality, of which subjects and objects 
are patterns, without positing their genesis or man's contribution to the 
Quality hierarchy.  The two novels are "feel good" prose that give us some 
insight into his personal struggles as a philosopher, but leave us hanging 
in a universe that moves automatically to "betterness" with no meaning or 
purpose for man other than to somehow rise above its organic and social 
levels.

Certainly aesthetic appreciation is a major component of a value-based 
philosophy, which is why I thought Peter Williams' essay would be a welcome 
read, especially for the artists in this forum.  Either I was mistaken or 
the article was construed as a pitch for theism on my part, which it is not.

What sparked my interest in this concept was its support for an uncreated 
source, as the author suggests: "the origin of things is to be found, in the 
uncreated, which is the source of all creation."  What I didn't expect was 
that the word "God" or "theism" would be so abhorrent to Pirsigians that 
they would reject the concept out of hand.

Sorry to have troubled you, Marsha.

Regards,
Ham


> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:57 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
>
> Dear Marsha --
>
>
>> Greetings Ham,
>>
>> It is only respect for you that I even skimmed the Williams article.
>> I am so an atheist that it was difficult to concentrate on the words.
>> Experience is Quality, experiencing beauty is Quality, experiencing
>> joy is Quality.  There is no need for theist explanation, or scientific
>> explanation, for that matter, intellectual explanations only denigrate
>> the experience. Imho.  It is a MU thing, beyond division, labels,
>> description and definition. There is no need for an understanding
>> of purpose or primary source.  It is not this, not that.
>
> I understand your reluctance to consider the meaning of Quality (Value) 
> and
> to simply enjoy the experience of it.  I'm also aware that "theism" is
> anathema to elitist philosophers who want us to believe they've overcome 
> the
> dogma of an "unenlightened age".
>
> However, there is a spiritual need in the heart of every human being, and
> philosophy is the intellectual way to explore it.  In my opinion, it's a
> shame to overlook a metaphysical approach to understanding by applying 
> 'MU'
> labels and taking our appreciation of Beauty, Goodness, and Freedom for
> granted.  The "need for an understanding of purpose and source" is an
> important (probably the most important) part of the life-experience.
>
> As an artist, surely you must have acquainted yourself with the pallet
> colors, perspective, and spacial relationships that make a portrait or
> landscape appealing on canvas.  Whether you've taken formal courses or
> simply enjoy it as a hobby, you study painting as an art form.  Why not
> extend this aesthetic interest to the universe you live in and consider 
> its
> metaphysical origins?  Isn't that what philosophy is all about?  Why 
> dismiss
> the meaning and purpose of what you've learned to love as meaningless
> speculation?
>
> I enjoy the creative arts, too -- especially classical music, which I
> studied in my youth.  And I have not found that "intellectual explanations
> denigrate the experience."  On the contrary, understanding what Value 
> really
> is, emotionally and metaphysically, has enhanced my aesthetic enjoyment 
> and
> led me to the pursuit of a valuistic philosophy.  This is far more
> fulfilling for me than religion, mysticism, and scientific explanations
> which rule out an uncreated source.
>
> Please understand, I'm not trying to sell you Philosophy as a bill of 
> goods.
> I'm only suggesting that a spiritualistic worldview can expand your
> philosophical (and esthetic) horizons.
>
> Thanks for responding, Marsha, and best wishes.
>
> Ham