Re: MD On Faith

From: ml (
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 - 05:12:39 BST

  • Next message: Charles Roghair: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Hello Erin...

    LOL Sorry, not trying to be confusing, but you
    may have placed your finger on half the cause:
    "I'm getting dizzy trying to figure out what
    the heck your argument is."
    I am not making an argument, but you are looking
    for that approach in your reading.

    The other half is less apparent. I bounced between
    the experiential description of SQ/DQ in one, certainly
    not beyond understanding, just something maybe
    you've not seen written quite in that manner, and I
    moved to the categorical of your rational/irrational
    to break down a seemingly unhelpful distinction...

    As to "belief in Moq," well I have none. It just so
    happens that Pirsig's formulation, descriptively,
    squares with what I have experienced on another
    "approach," another vector of "looking for clarity."
    As to faith, not sure I have anything by that
    description anymore, maybe I am wrong, but
    it doesn't feel that way.

    Earlier I said: "I am not trying to convince, just
    explain...," and that is still the case.
    If I had posession of some TRUTH is could try
    and convince, instead I have only observations
    experienced from a point of view, and all I can
    do is to try and explain.

    That explanation is itself only SQ, but if "we all"
    can point to DQ more effectively, it will "make for
    better reception" as it were.

    Maybe I missed the point where the voices in my
    head mentioned Rational Empiricism, but then I often
    confuse that with origami.

    Question is, what are you looking for: an argument,
    understanding, explanation, or something else?


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Erin
      Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:29 PM
      Subject: Re: MD On Faith

      ml <> wrote:
        Hello Erin,

        ---- Original Message -----
        From: Erin
        Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:57 PM
        Subject: Re: MD On Faith


        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.

        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.

        I am not trying to give you a hard time mel. I am just truly confused at how you distinguish these things. I'm getting dizzy trying to figure out what the heck your argument is.....remind me why you justify your belief in MOQ is not faith with the claim that it falls as RATIONAL empiricism and then with this new statement shun rational label as SOM and seemingly start to describe a realm of beyond understanding which was how you described faith.


    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 - 05:22:29 BST