Hello again, all. Two posts in a day. It's been a while.
Matt - this will have to be brief - I have to go earn the daily bread. I
work two jobs, raise a teenage daughter, (the older two are out of the
house) go to school and maintain house and grounds and automobiles.
I am mostly interested in the MoQ insofar as it applies to everyday life, it
seems it does a pretty good job of describing reality.
Now, for it.
> I'm curious as to how exactly the ethical requirement quacks like God in
> the "Something rather than nothing" genre of philosophical questions.
>
I believe I said it begs the question. "Something but not God" is a more
accurate description of the "ethical cause" genre.
> You said that God is analogous to DQ.
> How exactly, or rather, in what sense are you using analogous?
>
In my interpretation the MoQ, DQ would analogous to the aspect of God as
prime mover.
> 'Cuz,
> You then said that, >Ethical cause = DQ = God.
>
I should have said the "ethical cause" comes from 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.
>
Just so. BTW, I would say that metaphysics of God is what we are ultimately
uncovering.
> 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
>
And the problem is - what precisely? None of this precludes the operation of
the MoQ - or something rather like it - in a universe designed by God.The
particulars of God's nature do not concern us in this discussion and are a
distraction.
> 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.
>
Thus the distraction.
> 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).
>
Actually, the "ethical requirement" is merely an act of God rather than
assuming an impersonal "something-not-God" that favors the "Good."
> 1. You believe that the only duck in the bucket is Omnibenevolence.
>
Not hardly. I'm not sure you could even characterize God so. Lots of
evidence to the contrary, in fact.
> 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).
>
Exactly the opposite. DQ fits within God.
> 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.
>
Maybe I needed to be clearer. While not up on Spinoza, the argument that DQ
is one part of God works for me. Quality = God would also be a more or less
true statement.
> 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....
>
Please do.
> Explain what exactly "DQ is analgous to God" means.
>
In that one aspect of God = Prime Mover. (Genesis - pick one of the Creation
accounts)
> 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).
>
My God, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is inadequate to the task of
completely explaining the bucket of ducks; how in the world do I do this
without botching it completely?
Hmmm - how about:
God (Quality) is the whole ball of wax and everything else is a subset.
Leaving out the question of free will (argued ad nauseum on this forum) for
now.
> 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.
>
Fair enough. And, please, everyone do!
In the meantime, I shall pick up the Cliff's Notes version of the "World
According to Spinoza" and read through it over lunch.
drose
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
