[MD] Theism/epistemology

[X Acto]

Michael,
you given me quite a hill to work upward against. You want to discuss but preface by saying you are
not open to any new ideas on the subject so lets work from the conclusion of your response
to make my meaning clear.
 
"We *cannot* escape culture while remaining human."  and
 
" I dare say it is an innate (an not un-importantly notably 
unique) human drive to seek Quality in existence, Quality that transcends 
existence."
 
My arguement then using your exact words, if we can not escape culture
while remaining human , in other words human existence, then culture defines
human existence, therefore transcendence of human existence IS transcendence 
of culture. Then the innate human drive is to transcend cultural prejudices and
move closer to Quality (immediate expereince). If you are proposing, as Ham does
that there is meaning and purpose beyond immediate expereince then you
are correct Moq rejects it as a culturally derrived prejudice projected towards that immediate experience.
Theism is a cultural response to immediate expereince the transcendental expereince
cultural prejudices, definitions and explainations flow from.
 
This is a frightening proposition I know, for it leaves everything we know and
feel safe about behind. It challnges us to take responsibility for our own expereince
and accept the uncertainty of life, this is where "intent" comes into the picture.
Forming direction and purpose for ones own life utilizing the most practicale
cultural values as they effect our immediate expereince.
 
By asserting your closing phrase "But I'm game to discuss. Change of topic subject?"
you imply that you have the arguement sewn up and that your view is THE view
end of discussion.. This is the arguement against theists you are illustrating rather well.
 
They refuse to have their assumptions challenged and have difficulty in discussions
that ask that they take on a different perspective in order to garner an opposing view
and perhaps learn something about their own.
 
sincerely
-Ron




________________________________
From: Michael Poloukhine <moq at poloukhine.com>
To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:29:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Theism/epistemology

> Ron said:
> You mentioned transcendence, transcendence from cultural definitions, assumptions
> and prejudices. Once this is done, the word God becomes meaningless in a sense for
> how we know this word is defined by culture. Which is the problem and paradox of
> your idea. Even the asterek version brings culture back into the fray which leads
> me to think that God is a cultural word for a culturally transcedent expereince.
> This is why in Hebrew, Gods' name may not be spoken, in Islam the image of Mohammad
> or God may not be depicted, no graven images be made for it brings cultural prejudice
> into it. Both theism and atheism are culturally stigmatized words relaying the same
> cultural prejudices making both terms sort of a non issue in relation to the MoQ
> where belief is formed from practical experience.
> 
> Ron said:
> I wanted to add, that given this statement below, ephasizes the importance
> of which cultural concepts and how they are chosen to allow how they influence
> and color that said experience. Ones that hold practicle consequence in expereince
> having the most value.
> 
> The idea of intent becomes a pivotal topic in this discussion and
> one I would like to pursue with you if you are willing.
MP: Not sure what remains unclear about my intent in what I said, but 
discussion is what I am here for, so please, by all means proceed.

In advance, however, I should point out that your paraphrasing in the first post 
leaves me with words in my mouth that were never there. I never said anything 
about "transcendence of cultural definitions [etc.]" so I'm not sure your seeing 
an apparent conflict in what I said holds. The conflict is in what you said I said.

What I said was:

"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."

*Belief* is a *drive* to *seek* transcendence. Yes, theism is a culturally shaped 
response. But "to what?" "why g*d and not a rock?" These are the real 
questions.

(Ham's response to my quoted comment btw also *really* summed it up well in 
different words.)

Going forward in anticipation of your questions/propositions; I fail to see how 
anyone can argue that cultural context precludes a person's ability to either 
seek transcendence or even attain it in some way. If this is the MoQ argument, 
then IMO MoQ is screwed from the outset. We *cannot* escape culture while 
remaining human.

But I'm game to discuss. Change of topic subject?
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/