From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 18:12:34 BST
Hi Ham,
This is part 2 of 2.
msh said:
Well, so far, to me, and unlike the "pagan derived dogma," the
ontology of Essentialism isn't even understandable, so I can't
arrive at the question of its plausibility.
ham:
It looks as if I've got some work to do. (Maybe I should write a
novel. ;-)
msh says:
No need for a novel. Just explain this idea of psychic continuation,
the nature of Anthropocentric Essence, and its relationship to your
Designer/Creator. And try to do so without referring to the
existence of non-beings. Thanks.
ham before:
I would say that the purpose [of religion] is to engender
hope for the continuance of personal awareness.
msh:
That's because, for you, the continuance of your personal awareness
is of primary importance. For you, and many others apparently, any
hope, even false hope, is preferable to none at all. For me, every
second stolen from focusing on the indisputable fact of THIS life,
THIS here and now, and on how what we do affects the lives of
others, is a second wasted in egocentric reverie.
ham:
I certainly don't deny the value and importance of life. But are we
giving it full value if we don't know its meaning (or don't believe
it has any) in the cosmic sense?
msh says:
This is confusing. If we don't know life's cosmic meaning then maybe
there is none. In any case, how does believing something that may
not be true add value to our lives?
msh before:
You're right in claiming that this craving for personal survival
beyond death is at the core of religion; but to suggest that it is
at the core of philosophical inquiry is ahistorical nonsense.
ham:
Ahistorical nonsense? Do you deny that philosophy is the single,
most eminently suited discipline in our culture for applying reason,
logic and sensibility to finding the meaning of life?
msh says:
Where did you ever get the idea that finding the "meaning of life" is
the purpose of Philosophy? Philosophy is about discovering and
learning to live with truth, and the truth may well be that there is
no meaning to life other than what we give it. You've apparently
decided that there is a cosmic meaning to life and have shaped your
"philosophy" to find it. This is very strange.
msh before:
I don't think the MOQ was developed to make
people feel better about their chances for personal immortality.
ham:
Correct. Unfortunately, neither does it address what you and I agree
is the core issue of religious belief.
msh:
So? As above, fulfilling religious needs is NOT the purpose of
philosophy. I say let religion address the core issue of religious
belief.
msh before:
Pirsig himself said a metaphysics isn't right or wrong, it's merely
more or less useful in describing reality as we perceive it. For
me, the usefulness, and uniqueness, of the MOQ derives from its
expansion of the notion of empircism to include value awareness,
right or wrong, good or bad, right along with the power of
scientific observation.
ham:
To judge the "correctness" of metaphysics from a scientific viewpoint
is like judging a piece of music by a printout of its soundwaves.
The reason we have metaphysics is because physics is too restrictive
to give us the full picture, and because it cannot deal with human
values. But it's always going to be hypothetical.
msh:
I just finished saying that a metaphysics isn't correct or incorrect.
Also, you seem to believe that science is separate from metaphysics,
which is simply wrong. Science has its own metaphysical foundation
which doesn't allow the detection of right and wrong, good and bad.
What the MOQ does is EXPAND that foundation, bringing such value
judgements into the realm of empiricism.
msh before:
Since my own awareness of design followed by creation has so far
ALWAYS involved a human agent, I tend to discount the notion of a
non-human designer. I mean, I can imagine some non-human being
like a Clingon designing and building some nifty new battle cruiser
And I even see that this commonality of creativity, between Humans
and Clingons, might be well described as anthropocentric Essence.
But to suggest that this Essence exists independently of Humans and
Clingons, like some sort of stardust or etherous vapor, that it
could exist without any human-like agent at all, is, well, to put it
politely, incomprehensible.
ham:
Despite your existentially-bound imagination, you are unwilling to
accept what might be true on the basis of your inability to
comprehend the details.
msh says:
I suspect all of us are existentially-bound, whether we like it or
not. Anyway, I am unwilling to believe something for which there is
no evidence, just because it might be comforting to do so. I can
suspend judgement. Why is this so difficult for you?
ham continues:
Human comprehensibility is an exceedingly limited and dimensionally
distorted tool for acquiring knowledge.
msh says:
What is knowledge without comprehension? How does someone know
something they don't understand and can't explain? You are using the
word "know" in a highly idiosyncratic non-philosophical way. In
fact, you are using it the way religious people use it when they say
they know God exists. That reveals a lot about your philosophical
agenda.
ham:
I can assure you that you've accepted many concepts in this world as
true without comprehending the details. Do you fully comprehend the
biological immunity system, quantum physics, DVD recording...
msh says:
But there is plenty of evidence for the existence and operation of
these systems. Do you have similar evidence for the continuation of
human awareness after bodily death? Furthermore, if I need to
understand the details of the systems you mention, I can find
someone who will explain them, and I WILL understand. Are you
someone who understands the notion of awareness after death? If so,
you will be able to explain it to anyone of average intelligence. If
you don't understand it, can't explain it, but still believe it, then
your belief is religious not philosophical.
ham:
We humans are not privileged to directly access absolute truth; but
that doesn't mean there isn't any.
msh says:
Your first clause is a matter of opinion (faith?), not fact. The
second is true, but trivial.
ham:
A coherent and properly presented metaphysical thesis is not
"jargon"; it is a scheme or rationale (ontology) for the ineffable
that is sufficient for conceptual understanding.
msh says:
Fair enough. My point is that jargon prevents understanding, and, in
fact is often used to disguise a lack of understanding. Therefore,
an author who understands his thesis, and is truly interested in
explaining it to others, will avoid jargon at all costs. Read "Zen
and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig and you'll
see what I mean.
ham
One may comprehend the Value of such an ontology even if the working
details are left to its Designer.
msh says:
This is a little ambiguous. Are you speaking of yourself as the
designer of the Essentialist ontology, or of your Designer and
Creator of the universe? Or are they one and the same? ;-)
At any rate, if it's the later, you are assuming what you're trying
to prove.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 07 2005 - 19:42:22 BST