[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

On Thurs. 11/4 at 1:36 AM, Ham asked Mark --

Are you with me, Mark?

[Mark replied]:
> No, not quite, but I don't subscribe much to utopian ideas.
> Man is what man is.  I know, utter nonsense, but whatever.
> We still have some discussion to go on "man being the
> measure of all things".  I still do not see the point at which
> differentiation (negation) occurs by your model.  But
> otherwise I agree with most of what you said.  Cultist
> certainly does have some negativity to it, but rhetoric is
> key in our discussions.
>
> Back to the dismissal of theism.  Some in this forum state that
> Quality cannot be described, because that would encompass it
> and not truly reflect Quality.  That is all good and well, and I
> have no problem with such a notion.
>
> However, what some do not realize is that such a statement
> is identical to the command given by religions that one will not
> worship false idols.  (I can see Dave turning red, and covering
> his ears, singing loudly now).  In that sense (now Dave and dmb
> read carefully, in THAT sense), the concept of Quality is similar
> to the concept of God.  Why did Jesus go haywire and destroy
> a temple, why did the more recent profit prohibit symbols of his
> god?  For exactly the same reason that we do not want to define
> Quality.  They cannot be encapsulated in idols or in words.
> The words of God are all analogies, again ANALOGIES.
> To form a concrete definition of such has the same value as
> defining Quality.  It is pre-intellectual, it is intuitive (if you will).
>
> To apply logic or science to religion is nonsense.  It is charging at
> windmills.  So, if the premise is one of anti-theism, they sure seem
> awfully similar to me.  Perhaps Religion arises out of Quality, but
> one could also say that Quality comes from God (after all, the
> concept of God came first). It's all the same man-made creation,
> just different words.

Mark, if it's alright with you, I'd like to spend our time on a thesis we 
can agree on, rather than dissect one that gives us problems.  I've given up 
trying to accommodate the fundamentals of Esentialism to Mr. Pirsig's 
Quality ontology.  Obviously, Quality/Value figures prominently in both 
philosophies; but the effort to make meaningful comparisons requires a major 
shift in rhetoric, which only adds to the confusion.

Theism is commonly understood as belief in a supernatural entity, and while 
Essence "transcends" difference and otherness, it does not "stand above" 
nature or experiential existence.  I hold no animus toward theism which, 
after all, is just another expression of man's need for spiritual 
completion.  In my ontology, the individual self is "estranged" from its 
absolute source, and this need is sensed as the Value of Essence.  The 
experience generated by  value-sensibility is the appearance of a 
self-subsistent world of finite things and events in process.

We have the resources of physical and biological science to define the 
principles and dynamics of that world so that we may shape it to our 
practical needs.  Like mathematics and logic, objective science is based 
solely on empirical knowledge.  If we need something more, we must turn to 
religion, philosophy, or mysticism which are based on intuitive precepts and 
(to some degree) the faith of the believer.  Whether it's Platonism, 
Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, Judeo-Christianity, Zoroastrianism, 
Existentialism, Qualityism, or Essentialism, we can derive no value from it 
unless it has sufficient credibility to warrant our belief.

If the word of God recorded in scripture is analogy, it won't suffice for 
the believer.  If the Prophet's comandments are unconscionable to the 
Muslim, he will become an Infidel.  If the mystic cannot attain Nirvana by 
the practice of contemplation, he will turn to alternate belief systems. 
Ultimately, each of us seeks a conception of reality that satisifes our 
spiritual quest.

One further clarification: A "concept" must be defined in words in order to 
be conveyed to others.  (That's why metaphysics is "nothing but 
definitions," as Prisig complained.)  But a "conception" is one's conceptual 
understanding, whether it is set in words or equations, analogized, or 
merely described.  This, I submit, is what we are after.  The rest is 
typically philosophology, opinion, polemics, or anecdotal "what I read last 
night" commentary.

So, again I ask: Are you still with me, Mark?

Cheers,
Ham