[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Ham Priday]

Hi Michael (and all) --


On 2/7 at 12:24 PM MP wrote:

> I do not deny that belief in God is culturally derived.
> What I am saying is that belief in g*d is deeper than culture.
> That it is some sort of inner human drive to seek
> transcendence. I dare say it is an innate (an not
> un-importantly notably unique) human drive to seek
> Quality in existence, Quality that transcends existence.
> That this need becomes manifest in culture and brings us
> God is not in question, but in its pure form it it is something
> else (hence: g*d). In my pedantry on this topic I am simply
> seeking to delve into what that something else is,
> esp. v.v. MoQ's Quality.
>
> And on topic; it is as such distinctly different from epistemology;
> it is precisely a drive to transcend the epistemological tableau
> in its entirety. Akin to the difference between knowledge
> and understanding.

By anyone's standards, this is a high-quality affirmation of man's innate 
spirituality.  Even the nihilists here would be hard pressed to deny the 
"human drive to seek transcendence," athough they would insist that this is 
a static pattern of value moving toward Dynamic Quality.

The key word in this statement is "seeking".  What we seek objectively we 
desire subjectively.  Or, as Sartre put it, "we want the being of the other 
for ourselves".  But because each self is estranged from beingness in its 
dichotomous condition of being-aware, our desire to "possess" the being we 
seek remains unrequited.  As conscious beings we are left to realize value 
indirectly, in our experience of emerging things and their sensible 
properties.  Since all knowledge is derived from the experience of finite 
being, we never know the value we seek "in its pure (or absolute) form". 
Primary value is not an object that can be realized subjectively, which is 
why we refer to it as "transcendent".

Now, whether you choose to call this transcendent value Quality, Divinity, 
Potentiality, Spirit, God, or Essence, I submit that it is the ultimate 
source of all experience and the driving force of human action.  Putting 
aside the analogies and labels that divide us philosophically, we all share 
a common existential deficiency -- as human beings we are estranged from the 
undifferentiated source of our being.  Yet, while we may choose to deny this 
truth, we are all equipped with the sensibility and reason to affirm it.

Unless I have misunderstood the thrust of Michael's statement, it is a 
persuasive argument for including theistic, valuistic, metaphysical, and 
nihilistic viewpoints in a forum dedicated to an exploration of Pirsig's 
Quality thesis.  It will be interesting to see what objections, if any, are 
raised against this argument.

Essentially yours,
Ham