From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 22:09:00 BST
Hello Erin,
---- Original Message -----
From: Erin
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
Hi,
<snip>
There are many "rational" people who think the MOQ is "irrational" and
nothing you have said seems like it would convince them. I wanted you to
explain your argument to a skeptic-----slapping a title "rational
empiricism" I would doubt would convince them.
Can you explain why it is rational empiricism, please.
mel:
It seems that labeling MoQ as either rational or irrational is
rather a SOM-ish position. Fine for a philosophy class but
counter productive for wrapping crenelations of squishy
brain matter around Quality.
Static Quality would seem rather more concrete in
rationality and experience as we often consider
those attributes manifest-in-being.
Dynamic Quality would be more "pre-rational" than
irrational, until it begins to accrete into being from
manifesting-becoming out of non-being and then
passes into Static Quality.
Or to put it another way, comedians can't joke about
DQ as it is not shared experience the way SQ is.
Only when we've shared SQ sufficiently can any of
it take on the stature of banana-skin pratfall verbiage
in the lexicon of Stephen Wright or others...
thanks--mel
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 Oct 26 2004 - 00:27:02 BST