Re: MD On Faith

From: Erin (
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 23:00:54 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD On Faith"

    ml <> wrote:Hello Erin,
    I am not trying to convince, just explain...
    I changed PRACTICES to PRINCIPLES as it made more
    sense to me. Not quite sure there is any MoQ ritual...
    ********* okay i see
    Consciousness, just is consciousness OF SOMETHING.
    If faith is what sustains beyond thinking or understanding
    it would seem that *you are not quite fully fluent in that
    'meaning' beyond which your apprehension fails, and
    can be said to be less than fully conscious of that
    *************** mmm okay dynamic quality isn't fully understood by me (many complex concepts for that matter) but I feel that I do understand it to a degree, is my apprehension failing?
    To classify ALL faith as unconscious would be a failed
    position; faith is more a continuum than a class.
    ************* yeah i agree, just trying to figure out whether "rational empiricism" is off that continuum ;-)
    We all reach a limit to thought or understanding and
    my key phrase is whether the person is "comfortable
    with the implication of that state." In my experience
    those who claim faith tend to fall into Dogma instead
    of opening themselves to the immediacy of being.
    * - editorial you
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Erin
    Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:17 AM
    Subject: Re: MD On Faith

    Now I really wish there was a dissenter of MOQ here because my guess is that your answer wouldn't convince them. I think they would say you are falling back on "values" when you have doubt/ can't think past a point. I am not sure i am really following your example. Why did you change principles to values ( the principles are values?).
    I am not sure about how you think "conscious choice" is the difference, so all faith is unconscious is what you are trying to argue?


    ml <> wrote:
    Time to kick the wasps' nest...
    Since faith is what people tend to fall back on
    when they have substantial doubt, can't think
    /understand past a certain point, and are not
    comfortable with the implications of that state,
    then (changing your example slightly) using the
    PRINCIPLES of the MoQ to guide decisions is not
    faith, but conscious choice instead.
    Of course in a SOM society it is the fastest way
    to incite one's own removal from office fastest.
    (probably with a non-approved strategy for
    administration change) Lots of embedded
    investment in SOM...
    Quality, expressed as attributes of being is in
    large measure apprehensible, faith is not needed.
    Revealed truth, cloaked in miracle, wrapped in
    dogma, encysted in bureaucracy, ossified in
    social teaching requires faith to keep the original
    flicker alight.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Erin
    Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:10 PM
    Subject: MD On Faith

    Kerry pressed his attack on the president's record in new television ads, while on the campaign trail he sought to strike a more inspirational tone, saying in a speech on faith that values he practices as a Roman Catholic "will guide me as president."

    What if he said that "values that he practices as an MOQer will guide me as president". Is that faith, why or why not? ( I am not asking the difference between RC and MOQ---I just want to know why using MoQ is/ is not faith in quality). Answer this as if I was skeptic of MOQ.




    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 00:49:24 BST