Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 20:08:37 GMT

  • Next message: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com: "Re: Ham; Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    Hi Ham,

    You wrote:
    > I eliminate that question by positing Essence as timeless and omnipresent.
    > It requires no prior source. This may, as you claim, take a "leap of
    > faith"; but I think the rationale overcomes the inadequacies of other
    > ontologies sufficiently to be considered intuitive truth.

    What you call Essence I call existence which equals Quality. It requires
    no leap of faith because unless existence exists neither you nor I would
    be here to talk about it, and there is no escape from Quality no matter
    how hard you, I or anyone else tries. (As for the Big Bang, something had
    to exist to go "bang." Cosmologists call it a singularity.)
     
    > My theory is not a word game, nor do I believe the MOQ is. It's a
    > conceptual hypothesis.
     
    So long as concepts are expressed in symbols such as words, they will
    never be equivalent to thing symbolized. That's what I mean by "games,"
    e.g., proverbial fingers pointing at the moon. And, you can no more
    describe existence or quality or beauty than fly to the moon, but you know
    it anyway. That's what I mean by "leap of faith." Existence exists, but I
    can't prove it.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

    Best,
    Platt

    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 Dec 08 2004 - 20:07:25 GMT