From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 21:25:40 GMT
Ham,
> This omission has nothing to do with the author's desire to avoid theism,
> since the God of religion is a "supreme being", and what possesses being
> exists as an object to be perceived.
Few if any theistic theologians would agree with this concept of God.
Usually, God is thought of as Being itself, not a being, supreme or no.
Sometimes as beyond being. In no way would God be though of as an object to
be perceived.
> Isn't Quality also an aspect of
> objects perceived?
That's the pre-MOQ view. The MOQ changes this to say that Quality is what
produces the perceived object (and the perceiving subject)....
> If so, then Quality does not transcend the physical
> world, which means that it is contingent upon a subject-object duality.
> This is precisely why I continue to insist that without a transcendent
> source the MOQ is inadequate as a metaphysical theory.
...hence Quality is the transcendent/immanent source you require of a
metaphysics. Either you accept the MOQ's change in how Quality is conceived
or you don't. Instead, you are using the old concept of Quality to argue
against the new use. If you don't accept the new use, then you are simply
rejecting the MOQ.
- Scott
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 Nov 09 2004 - 22:12:41 GMT