[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Hi John (Tim quoted) --

First, I must apologize for crediting Ian on 11/14 for this comment of 
yours:

[John]:
> The trouble as I see with labeling the MoQ plainly atheist, is as I told
> Dan, the MoQ is no more anti-theistic than it is anti-theory-of-gravity.
> People come up with ideas to deal with their world. The MoQ says
> they do this as a function of Quality. What the MoQ is against, is
> assigning objectivity to subjective ideas about reality. Or reification,
> in simpler term. And what usually goes by the name "atheist" does this
> just as much as any theism you can name. Which is why I have no
> peace of mind with the term "atheist".

I agree that the label "atheist" should not be applied to the MoQ, despite 
the fact that Mr. Pirsig himself
declared his philosophy "atheistic" in the Copleston Annotations.  (Perhaps 
"non-theist" would be a more appropriate description.)  I disagree, however, 
that "subjective ideas" about reality, which are the only ideas we can have, 
should not be regarded as objective.  Unless what you mean by "assigning 
objectivity" is making a "concrete object" (i.e., being) out if a idea, 
ultimately the reality we are conceptualizing must relate to a true source 
or essence.  If not, then metaphysics is a waste of our time.

This is an important consideration, John -- particularly in that we are 
trying to define something we cannot directly experience.  Unfortunately for 
philosophers, the "ineffable" must remain a conception of human 
understanding; yet "how" we conceive it cannot be left to faith, mysticism, 
or dogma.  Our conception of the Creator or Primary Source must in the final 
analysis account for awareness, difference, plurality, and the appearance of 
material reality.

With this in mind, I'd like to address the issues raised in two recent 
comments

[John asked]:
> But Ham?  What about "value must be realized by a valuing agent to be
> real?"  Is not the creator just as dependent upon his creation  for his
> being, as his creation is dependent upon Him?  Without a created realizer,
> all this essence is just sitting around and contemplating nothing, being
> realized by nothing.  Is nothing, in other words.  Thus, I'd challenge 
> your
> "absolute dependency" and change it to "absolute co-dependency".

I didn't mean to infer that Value is not "real", but rather that it can 
"exist" only differentially -- as the "co-dependent" link between subject 
and object.  Which means that whatever represents value to the observer will 
necessarily be finite and transitional, just as experience is always 
diversified and relational.  One of the problems I have in articulating my 
ontology is the fact that there are two modes of reality.  What I call 
"existence" is the compartmentalized or fractional mode better known to 
Pirsigians as SOM.  I define existence as "the pluralistic physical world 
that is localized in time and space."  Essence, on the other hand, is "the 
ultimate, unconditional source of all that is or can be."

John, I do not believe the Creator is dependent on creation for "his being". 
For one thing, "being" is not the domain or province of Essence.  Also, what 
is absolute and self-sufficient cannot logically be dependent.on another. 
That said, I do believe the negation of individualized value-sensibility may 
be thought as "completing" or "perfecting" Essence by some teleology that I 
have not fully conceptualized but can express only as "affording the means 
whereby Absolute Essence may be realized externally by a "free agent".

[Tim said]:
> ...I wasn't suggesting that the 'already absolute' was dynamic, per se.
> The point was that there is no reference to say either way.  If the 
> absolute
> desired to remain constant, it would have no way to go about doing so,
> and it would have no way of knowing if it were succeeding.  The point is
> that both those terms are relational, like you say, and thus have no
> meaning to the 'already absolute'.  Thus it need not be, and in fact it
> cannot be, constrained that way.
>
> if the 'already absolute' wants any dynamism (anything at all - beyond
> itself - I think, as I see the 'already absolute' as a pitiful and 
> wretched
> state), it must invite relationship in.

I don't see a problem with an eternal creator "remaining constant".  Nor can 
I understand why you characterize the absolute state as "pitiful and 
wretched".  In fact, you have no grounds to support such a view.  This is in 
effect complaining that Perfection is confining or boring.  How would you 
know, Tim?   What state of perfection have you attained as a mortal 
creature?

Much more troublesome for me is explaining how diversity and change emerge 
from constancy or immutability.  My own hypothesis is that the very nature 
of Essence is "negational", so that creation itself is constant and ongoing. 
I also feel that Pirsig's insistence that DQ is "dynamic" while SQ is 
"static" is inverted.  Our experiential world is in continuous flux, and the 
universe is always evolving.  We live in a time continuum where things not 
only come and go but relate to each other according to principles that are 
dynamic in every sense, whether analyzed biologically, physically, or 
psychologically.

Conversely, there is no logical or metaphysical reason to assume that the 
primary source is subject to the dynamics of finitude.  Indeed, the concept 
of eternality has been applied to the Creator for thousands of years.  It 
symbolizes the "peace" of God, and being "at rest" with one's Maker, in the 
context of "Foreverness".  What better description of an unconditional 
("static") source has our language produced?

Essentially speaking,
Ham