From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 00:25:22 BST
Hi Scott, and all,
For clarity, I have no problem with using the word "God" as shorthand
for "undefined transcendent source," as no one here appears to be
using it in the anthropomorphic sense. In fact, the fewer keystrokes
the better, as far as I'm concerned. How about "G" for transcendent
and "g" for immanent?
On 16 Jul 2005 at 8:36, Scott Roberts wrote:
Mark SH.
Mark assumed:
Gentlemen. You are all assuming the reality of a transcendent
Source, then bending over backward to wedge it into your metaphysics.
The interesting psychological question is why?
Scott:
In my case, not transcendent, not immanent, not transcendent and
immanent, not neither transcendent nor immanent (and not, in my view,
distinguishable as a Source separate from a product, but I didn't
want to get into that at that point).
And it is interesting to ask why you see it as a psychological
question. Are we back to the "religion is for wimps" business?
msh 7-16-05:
I don't think so. I think there's a psychological element involved
in one's choosing to assume G rather than g in developing one's
metaphysics. It might be interesting to explore that element, that's
all.
scott:
You don't accept the possibility that God, or Nothingness, or the
Tao, or whatever, might not serve one as an intellectual hypothesis?
msh 7-16-05:
Sure I do. Pirsig assumes Quality as G, which he directly equates
with the Tao. Both you and Ham are criticizing RMP, remember?
That's why I asked the following question...
msh before:
If the theory of "otherness" or "contradictory identity" allows you
to incorporate an assumed primary source into your metaphysics, why
won't the same theory support Pirsig's assumption of Quality as the
primary source?
Scott previously:
I would say that we also cannot attribute to it Unity or "Oneness".
It is not One, not Many, not One and Many, not neither One nor Many.
msh 7-15-05:
Assumes the reality of [God], then precedes to talk about it in a way
that strikes me as, well, gibberish. Sorry, Scott.
Scott:
"It" in this case refers to God, because I was talking to Ham, who
was using the word. In talking to a Buddhist "it" would refer to
Nothingness (sunyata).
As to its striking you as gibberish, it is a straightforward
application of the Buddhist tetralemma, the cornerstone of 2000 years
of Buddhist logic. If you have a way of describing or explaining
consciousness, or intellect, or quality, in Aristotelian logic, I'm
all ears.
msh 7-16-05:
Being old doesn't keep an idea from being gibberish. But I've
already conceded that it just may be beyond my ability to understand.
What's disappointing is that those of you who claim to understand it
are unable to help me see the light. When I was a kid, television
was a mystery to me. How do we send pictures through the air? But I
had no problem finding someone (my father) who could explain it to
me, and the mystery disappeared. My feeling at this point is that
"contradictory identity" theory is about maintaining a mystery, not
solving one.
As for an explanation of consciousness, I think them nogoodnik
positivists have come a long, long way toward understanding the
relationship between the brain and awareness. This doesn't mean they
have the final explanation, or that they ever will. Science says "We
don't have an answer to the question of what causes consciousness,
but so what? Saying G caused it, or G IS it, is no answer, either."
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 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 : Sun Jul 17 2005 - 00:33:34 BST