From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Oct 06 2004 - 19:49:38 BST
On 5 October 2004 - 3:58:38 BST Chuck writes on faith:
<snip>
[Chuck] Which leads me to my final point...
Faith is for Science. Faith is for people. Have faith in your spouse
or your best friend or your family or booze or porn, hopefully it is
rational faith; have faith in art or philosophy or literature or junk
food or television or The Fighting Irish...
Faith doesn't enter the equation, where "God" is concerned. I am God;
the apriori me, I mean, that guy, him, me, I, am God. Faith is moot.
The self is it, after all.
REALITY!
Hi Chuck and all,
I am a Roman Catholic and I sing in choir every Sunday. I find nothing in my
understanding of the MOQ that disturbs my peace of mind. My approach to the
moral levels of the MOQ is through a mystical connection to DQ. I suppose in
some way I view faith as a mystical connection to a DQ of religion. I do not
know that this is a bad thing.
If the evolution of the moral levels is incomprehensible to SQ, I find no
irrationality in moving to a mystic acceptance of DQ for a further
explanation. I was taught that there are seven centers of gravity in any
action. Aquinas identified them as seven capital sins. In a mystical
apprehension of Quality there are four levels inorganic, organic, social and
intellect. Four and seven are not equal yet I find a coincidence.
[Scott] 01-10-04 9:17 AM The MOQ says that I am a set of inorganic,
biological, social, and intellectual SQ, capable of responding to DQ. I
disagree with this definition, preferring to think of myself as a locus of
DQ/SQ interaction.
In my view, the MOQ definition is inadequate to the mystery of the self, in
particular, it seems to me overly dualistic, that there is me here, and DQ
coming from other than me. Also, I think it denies creativity, and the
ability to make choices, on the part of the self.
[Scott] But since I consider the self to be an irreducible mystery, one
should not
think my definition solves any of your questions. "DQ/SQ interaction" is
just another name for the mystery. My complaint with the MOQ definition is
that in "solving" the mystery, it reintroduces dualism, if not theism.
[Chuck] 06-10-04 10:54 AM I'm dealing with reality. I'm not doubting your
personal Catholicism is different, Scott, but until the Church takes a new
official position that is
the reality.
[Joe] Pirsig tried to deal with the reality of SOM. Not a bad thing to do! I
am not an apologist for Catholicism. I have a lot to learn.
[Joe] One of the seven sins was Sloth. The positive of Sloth is Trust. I
trust the sun will rise tomorrow, I am virtuous. I accept the intellectual
level is higher than the social level. I am virtuous. I have no way to
discuss with others the DQ of these levels. For myself I use a mystical
order-gravity, purpose, existence, unfinished s/o. Maybe I am talking to
myself, but when I sing I have fun.
Joe
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 : Wed Oct 06 2004 - 20:17:03 BST