From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 21 2005 - 03:20:06 GMT
Ant McWatt had stated to Scott: However, I can see why he (and Marsha) are
frustrated with your recent posts because you are tending to distort the MOQ
rather than clarifying or
adding to it.
Erin commented on this February 20th:
We are here to clarify and add to the MOQ but I think that if critiquing of
his work is not welcomed and every disagreement is assumed to be a
misunderstanding and labeled a distortion we are doing a disservice to his
work and philosophy.
Ant McWatt notes: This is fair comment as far as it goes though - in this
particular instance - I think David B’s and Marsha’s frustration with
Scott’s recent posts was largely justified. It would be dishonest of me to
pretend otherwise.
Erin stated February 20th:
Could you answer a couple a questions for me.
1) What is the best definition of empirical in your opinion?
Ant McWatt answers:
Sorry about this Erin but when I said I agree with Ron it’s because I also
have little interest in the issue of empiricism as it has been discussed on
MOQ Discuss recently.
Erin asked February 20th:
2) Do you think that experiencing the quality of a painting is the same
type of experience as experiencing the length of a painting?
Ant McWatt answers:
Not usually. The first is an artistic experience while the second is an
intellectual one.
Erin asked February 20th:
3) If you do see a difference in experiences and/or verifiablity why is it
wrong to distinguish [between] these type of experiences?
Ant McWatt answers:
I don’t think it is wrong. For instance, it’s a lot easier to verify a
mystic experience than, for example, verifying a particular scientific
understanding of reality from studying the quantum behaviour of sub-atomic
particles. The former can be verified by anyone (whether in a jungle,
Western suburb or mountain) with the right guide or with knowledge available
at any decent local library while the latter can only be verified by a small
industrialized elite with substantial resources and fairly esoteric
knowledge. I seem to remember Richard Feynman, the famous physicist and
Nobel Prize Winner stating that there is probably only a handful of people
in the world who understand quantum physics – and only to some extent.
Finally, mystics have more general agreement with each other than quantum
physicists do in their respective field – Pirsig’s SODV paper is as good
indication of the latter’s profound disagreements as any.
Erin stated February 20th:
...especially when other distinctions,e.g. types of quality or another fave
typing by politically-proned members--types of people) are welcomed here
Ant McWatt comments:
Erin, this last section is gobbledegook (those typos again!) or a riddle by
the Mad Hatter or possibly both. It would therefore be helpful if you could
re-state it if there is a serious point lurking in there somewhere,
Best wishes,
Anthony.
www.anthonymcwatt.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
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 : Mon Feb 21 2005 - 03:25:31 GMT