[MD] God is cheese

[Jan-Anders]

Hi Ron and Ham and all

I think a God as an aspect of Quality can well be discussed in this forum.

I think it all depends on how the actual God is defined.

At the inorganic level we do know a lot about the principles behind the 
creation, structure and destruction of atoms and molecules. We usually 
no longer call these principles or moral values Gods but just the 
ordinary laws of physics and chemistry.

At the biologic level we know very well how the survival of the fittest 
in the ever changing environment as the main principles behind the 
evolution, interaction and extinction of biologic structures. We don't 
call Darwin a God here because he didnt invent this principle, he just 
was one of them who discovered it. Strong competitors however, tend to 
worship this principle as a justifier for their success.

At the social level we know pretty well how social laws, dictated by 
powerful individuals, have a serious effect on how people is raised, 
justified and recieve their grade of celebrity. We don't call these 
powerful men (mostly) Gods either. We are not really sure about what 
these powerful think about themselves as we can't scrutinize their inner 
untold ideas and mind. Maybe Mark is working on something. There are 
however pictures of Gods in religious litterature but I can tell that 
there is Not one real photography taken that shows a real God.

At the intellectual level we can se the principles that learn us about 
objective being and existence, what separates thruth from lies and why 
some constructions is working in practice while other will fail, and 
also the principles about freedom and the infinite number of variations. 
A discussion about this is alive in this forum since years. We don't say 
that we discuss Gods here, we don't call RMP a God either. We just 
discuss intellectual concepts and ideas with an open mind and respect 
for others standpoints. Is Horse the God in here? Is he wearing  a 
beard? Is this forum so intellectually purified so that beard or not 
beard doesn't matter?

I mentioned The first line in the gospel of St John as a hint on that I 
think that the Word that is discussed there could have a connection with 
the Quality concept discussed by RMP.

If someone think that there is a one and only and complete guiding 
system that works through all these known levels and that this guiding 
system is a living creature with beard and an oversized toga, that is 
his personal view.

If someone call this general principle Quality, Art or Dharma it could 
be a little bit more easy to agree.

Beware of the Monty Python Cheese Shop Sketch.

Anything possible.

Jan-Anders



Xacto wrote 2011-02-07 08.25:
>
> I have been following Ham's discussion with Mark:
>
> [Mark]:
>> >Wow Ham, this is a loaded question.? This could hijack the
>> >conversation into who knows what, perhaps our definition of an
>> >undefinable.? Now, you do ask for a personal understanding of God.
>> >This could be that God is Cheese, which would be a valid answer
>> >since it is personal.? If you are asking for a religion, then this is not
>> >the right forum for that.
> Ham replies:
> Why is this not an appropriate question for a philosophy forum?? We see
> discussions of physics, art, music, politics, Buddhism, and intellectualism
> on the MD.? Philosophy is the search for an understanding of reality and its
> meaning through a study of fundamental beliefs.? Of course one's belief in a
> creator is "personal"; but if beliefs are not fundamental to this search, I
> don't know what is.? If Pirsig's Quality thesis is not a statement of his
> personal belief, then we are all deceived.? Frankly, I think this is the
> perfect forum in which to discuss the reality of God.
>
> Ron:
> Ham has a point here although the only discussion he will entertain
> is his own belief system as a matter of common sense.
>
> That having been said, the matter of the discussion of the "reality of God".
>
> The focus of the discussion lies within how Ham comprehends this notion,
> namely he contextualizes the idea within an objective framework making
> the discussion at odds from the start. Which is why this discussion has
> yielded little in the past on this particular forum.
>
> To discuss the idea of "God" and the "reality" of the concept the notion of
> objectivity
> must be set aside in order to have a constructive dialog which Ham has been
> unwilling
> to do. Mainly because his entire belief system rests apon it. This is why
> discussing
> the "reality of God" with Ham in particular usually does not further our
> understanding
> of Quality very much.
> I think the topic is an interesting one and may be formed around quality ideas
> but until
> the objective context is divorced from the dialog, there really is not much to
> be gained from the topic.