[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

Dear Ham,

Thanks for the post.  Some of the fault in confusion is no doubt my own.  I
need to label and edit more clearly, I can see.  I will try to do so.


Ham:


>
> 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.)


John:

As dmb pointed out, the literal meaning of a-theist, is non-theist.  So
while being a literally correct term, it's  fraught with anti-theistic
connotation in my view, that are inappropriate for a truly profound
metaphysical stance.

Ham:


>  I disagree, however, that "subjective ideas" about reality, which are the
> only ideas we can have, should not be regarded as objective.


John:

Right.  Subjective ideas are objects themselves.  God is at least real, as a
concept.  That's what I meant to say.

Ham:

This is an important consideration, John -- particularly in that we are
> trying to define something we cannot directly experience.


John:

 Much  of scientific knowledge that we hold dear is beyond direct experience
- from quarks to black holes, we do it all the time.

Ham:



> 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.
>

John:

No argument from me.  And I also agree with dmb that of course we
conceptualize the non-conceptual.  But how we do this and what fruit we
obtain from our conceptualization should be our primary concern - and not
something left, as you say, to "faith, mysticism or dogma".  So far, so
good.

Ham:

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:

Well I certainly sympathize with your plight.  I'd have trouble articulating
that mouthful myself.  I certainly have trouble understanding your
"essence".  Personally, I like to deal with just one mode of reality at a
time - the one I experience is quite enough for me.

Ham:


> 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".
>
>
John:

The best way I have of communicating what I mean is this - that realization
is what makes things real.  Any Creator that is unrealized, is by
definition, unreal.  However, my own personal realization is not the
foundation of reality.  Just MY reality.  Here I borrow from Royce in
stating that what is real then,  is that which is realizable in some
fashion, in other's experience, or my own future experience.   This may not
be too far off from your "Absolute Essence may be realized externally by a
free agent", but I'm going one step further I think, in postulating that
that which is not realized by any free agent, is by definition then, unreal.




> [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.
>>
>
>
John:

Tim has a good mind, and he restates my case in his own words quite
eloquently.  "Inviting relationship" is "realization" or "making real", to
me.  My only caveat is that I equate the "pitiful and wretched state of the
unrealized" as being basically "unreal".

Ham:

I don't see a problem with an eternal creator "remaining constant".


John:

I do!  For one thing, it contradicts experience.

Ham:


> 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?
>
>
John:

I'll answer again, an evolving one.  Our realization grows, therefore our
understanding of our relationship with our source grows.  Our evolving
understanding of our source, is the only knowledge of that source we'll ever
know.  So that's the only realization there can be.

Thanks for your time, Ham.  Always a pleasure,

John