[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Michael Poloukhine]

MP: Ham, you nailed it. Thank you.

I especially like the description "estranged from the undifferentiated source of 
our being."

> 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