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

Sun Aug 2 02:09:03 PDT 2009

Greetings,

I have great respect for your participation on this list and all that you
say.  

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 3:22 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [Bulk] Re: The case for an Uncreated Source

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

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.

Marsha:
The third sentence above with the 'assume' is a problem.  That assumption is
a part of your reality, but not mine.  I have no problem equating experience
and awareness and Quality.  I do not know how you define 'spirituality', if
you mean 'a belief in god', I have no need of a god, and a genuine distain
for the Abrahamic version.  If you mean is there joy and wonderment in my
experience, I'd say yes there is a spirituality in my experience.  You will
need to define what you personally mean by 'spirituality', but then that
would make it intellectual.  

Ham:
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.  

Marsha:
Should?  Why?  Man is not so hot, far too egocentric, actually quite
mentally defective.  

Ham:
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. 

Marsha:
Are you asking why a pattern occurs?    

Ham:
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.

Marsha:
Mr. Pirsig's struggle was/is my struggle to stop struggling, to create
"betterness".  

Ham:
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.

Marsha:
Peter Williams' point-of-view on aesthetics was interesting, but mine is "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."     

Ham:
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.

Marsha:
I've been rejecting many patterns lately, so "God" and "theism" are just two
among many.  Not God.  Not theism.  

Ham:
Sorry to have troubled you, Marsha.

Marsha:
I enjoy discussing the MoQ with you, but sometimes do not agree with you.
Your point-of-view doesn't match my experience, but I appreciate a diversity
of opinion and value yours as yours.  I do not take an appreciation of
Beauty, Goodness, and Freedom for 
granted, I equate them to direct experience.         

Most respectfully,
Marsha

> -----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

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/