Duckman, I mean ... drose,

I'm curious as to how exactly the ethical requirement quacks like God in
the "Something rather than nothing" genre of philosophical questions.

Here's the deal (pretend that I know):

You said that God is analogous to DQ.
How exactly, or rather, in what sense are you using analogous?

'Cuz,
You then said that, >Ethical cause = DQ = God.

The problem that I see arising from those that find it unpleasing to have
God snuck back into metaphysics is that God, typically, entails more than
just ethical cause.

Here, in fact, would be the rebuttal:

Ethical requirement (cause, whatever; I think we can agree that they stand
for the same thing) equals DQ because they both stand for Good (that's
right, with a capital G).

God, however, stands for a whole bucket-load more of duck:
Omnibenevolence (that's the Good part)
Omnipotence
Omniscience
Omnipresence

Those are just some of the kinds of duck that get thrown into the
God-bucket.  Any particular believer may think differently.  There may be
more, there may be less.

But I would argue (and here's where I argue) that the ethical requirement
(as I understand it) only needs the "Good part".  It gets equated to DQ
(but is not the whole of DQ) because the "Good part" is contained within
DQ.  Of course, that's not all DQ is.  It's also the "pre-intellectual
cutting edge of experience".  And this does mean that the ethical
requirement can be equated to God for the same reason.  But I don't think
DQ can be equated to God (or vice versa) because not all of the parts of
either is contained in the other (in simpler terms, not all of DQ can be
fit in God without leaving something behind and vice versa).

UNLESS,

1.  You believe that the only duck in the bucket is Omnibenevolence.  That
you would be willing to say that God fits in DQ, but not vice versa (just
as the ethical requirement fits in DQ, but not vice versa).

or,

2.  You are a Spinozist and believe that DQ is just one part of God.  I
have to assume you would then argue that God = Quality.  Which is probably
the best thing to do and makes the clearest sense.

The reason for my renewed vigor in playing the game (see my last post) is
because of my fascination with Spinoza and God.  I've written an essay on
Spinoza, showing why he did not prove the existence of God (granting that
such a thing could be done), and currently he's making a surprise
appearence in an essay I'm writting/modifying for the Forum.  Though I was
in the midst of disproving his proof, at the same time as I wrote that
essay I was thinking, "Ya' know, if Spinoza just made God "Quality" his
proof would work."  Since then I've always thought that Pirsig was a kind
of Spinozist (just as he's "a kind" of everything else), just without the
God part.  And I always figured it would be fairly easy to convert the MOQ
into Spinozism, if one were so inclined.  So far, I haven't been so
inclined and this is the first time that I've actually written those
musings out.  Maybe I should write that essay....

Something for another time, I guess.

Oh, wait.  There was an arguement going on here.  Hrm, why don't I wrap it up.

2 parts:

Explain what exactly "DQ is analgous to God" means.

and then,

Explain what God actually means (i.e. which ducks are in the bucket) to,
let's say, you and how that makes it analogous to Dynamic Quality.  Or do
it for the Catholic Church, though I think you would have less of a leg to
stand on (or maybe not, who knows).

Or just do the last part.  It's the meatier one and probably includes the
first part.

Oh, and hey, anyone can do this.  I want to hear everyone who believes in
God to chime in on this one.  In large part because God means something
different for everyone and I don't want drose to speak on behalf of everyone.

Loving the ducks and all the quacking,

Matt


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Reply via email to