From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 04:41:42 GMT
Ian --
(Sorry for the delay, but my earlier message never got posted--probably
because my website URL was hyperlinked.).
> Thanks Ham - I didn't respond to Chin, since as you say it went off in
> other directions, before I was sure where we were starting from.
Yes, Chin does tend to 'philosophologize". But his suggestion that theism
is a dualistic belief system is correct and, I think, pertinent to our
discussion. In fact, it probably explains why I'm not a theist better than
a definition. I don't believe in God (Essence) as an "otherness". The
concept of an immanent Essence is more like the "subjective idealism" that
Paul has cited and that others are alluding to when they talk about
Mysticism.
> You inclusion of the word "refusal" in your defintion of athesist is one
of "intent"
> I don't believe in a trascendent being, because I see no need to, and so
far
> see that anywhere he does get called in to play as just a lazy cop out. If
> any evidence led me to the existence of a god as the least far-fetched
> explanation of anything, I would not refuse to believe though.
>
> My doubt concerning the existence of a god is so great that it is
> not a useful / meaningful / pragmatic starting point (for me) beyond a
> thought experiment on the subject of god .
I understand exactly where you're coming from, Ian. I used the word
"refusal" advisedly because the typical atheist is intransigent in his or
her unbelief; he is not open to suggestions or arguments to the contrary.
From what you've said above, I would qualify you as an agnostic, since you
are at least willing to be convinced. Like Mr.Pirsig, you abhor the
"religious baggage" of Judeo-Christianity, yet accept the Quality
metaphysics of MoQ lock, stock and barrel. My oldest friend, also agnostic,
is slowly coming around to my point of view. I see you as an ideal
candidate for Essentialism.
Unless you consider it proselytizing, I think I could convince you that a
primary source of existence is not only
necessary but "useful", "meaningful", and even a "pragmatic starting point"
for a workable philosophy.
You see, when Paul makes a statement like "The primary 'reality-in-itself'
is nothingness", he is preaching nihilism. It should be obvious to a
student of philosophy that whatever is "real" can't be "nothingness". But
Nihilism and Anti-theism are quite fashionable these days, and Pirsig has
played right into it. Belief in a diety is outmoded, unsophisticated,
unworthy of the enlightened intellect. Balderdash!!
Mankind has always searched for a connection with his creator; this desire
is innate in human beings, and some scientists have even speculated that it
is
built into our genes. The desire to attain an 'eternal connection', in
fact,
is a manifestation man's highest value.
Even Marsha, who claims to be an atheist, says:
"Personally, I like what I'm reading of Zen. It's atheistic and finds
everything sacred. I like that in a philosophy/religion." Why do you
suppose.she likes to imagine everything sacred? Because she wants an
all-encompassing Source to believe in. This Source isn't in the Zen 'UM' or
in the MoQ Quality or in the pantheist's Beingness. It is best expressed
for the Western mind, I think, in the concept of an immanent Essence.
Please do me the favor of re-reading my thesis at essentialism.net, Ian,
this time without the bias of "atheist/theist" labeling. If you don't find
what I have to say philosophically meaningful, or at least worth a question
or two, you can return to your atheistic persuasion and I'll desist in
my efforts to convert you.
And, thanks for your forthright reply.
Essentially yours,
Ham
>
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 05:53:37 GMT