[MD] The MoQ can't be atheistic

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Ron --


> Right.  How the term Nihilist is usually used is in a perjorative manner,
> which is a value in itself, thus one may claim they do not value theism,
> spiritualism or value agnosticism without denying it has value for
> others and as such they are indeed NOT deying their own beliefs.
>
> Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.
> a deity is in the broadest sense, a supernatural entity seperate
> and distinct from the believer and are typically thought of
> anthropomorphicly. you make some fairly broad generalizations
> with some pretty particular goals in mind.
>
> Answer this.  Is an understanding about how human beings derive
> meaning from experience a belief? or is it an understanding? The
> concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object
> of belief (the proposition). A position most Pirsigians do not
> subscribe to.

Understanding is the intellectual apprehension of an idea or concept as 
meaningful, which is not necessarily a "belief".  However, understanding is 
necessary in order to make the idea credible to us so that we can believe 
it.  I don't believe that accepting a proposition or doctrine "on faith" 
qualifies as a "belief" (which excludes a variety of religious 
propositions).

In an epistemological sense, a belief is not an "object" but an aspect or 
perspective of the subject's conscious awareness.  The proposition or 
premise on which the belief is based is generally derived from (objective) 
experience, although it can also be intuitive.  To suggest that Pirsigians' 
can't have beliefs because they reject subjects and objects is simplistic. 
The denial of subjects and objects is itself a belief, but one which 
contradicts human experience in deference to an adopted philosophy.  This is 
the kind of belief that Sartre called "bad faith", meaning an idea or 
principle accepted on the authority of another.

> You speak of value as an entity separate and distinct
> from the valuer. Each of us is the uncreated source,
> so in essence each of our own human experiences is
> our own god.

You've got this totally wrong.  It is Mr. Pirsig, not Ham, who posits Value 
(Quality) as a separate "entity".  I define it as man's affinity or desire 
for what he lacks in essence.  For me there is but one "uncreated source" 
and we are its created agents.  We are all born with an innate sensibility 
to Value from which we construct our being-in-the-world.

[Ham, previously]:
> At least that is my understanding of what drives mankind
> in his quest for philosophical meaning.

[Ron]:
> And that is my understanding as to why it keeps from
> being understood.

But if I don't explain my understanding of reality, how can it be 
understood?
[Perhaps you would volunteer to explain it to me ;-].

Regards,
Ham