From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 08 2005 - 02:13:19 BST
Sam,
The eudaimonic paper ? Not recently, and I guess I didn't "get it" the
first time - so it looks like a re-read is needed.
"Substantive" individual ? We're playing with words. No more
"distinct" individual than distinct anything else, bar quality. And as
the DMB / Scott line on Tat Tvam Asi debate shows - it can barely be
said in words, until you've bought the spirit of it. Like Zen in fact.
Atheistic / Non-Theistic ? I feel it is explicit that MoQ does not
"require" god as part of its explanation, there are no gaps waiting to
be filled. It doesn't explicitly exclude it, but I feel that is just
rhetorical, to get a fair hearing in US. No point waving the red-rag,
breaking eggs, as I did. I sense most MoQ "believers" would support
the atheistic line, a non-theistic line. Anyway - just a line in the
sand - I'll re-read your paper (one of my blog readers actually
pointed out it was worth a read too.)
Clearly MoQ benefits from being tested against alternative views, just
need that line in the sand.
Ian
On 8/7/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> > Individual ?
> > I was nervous at using the word - "individual IN the world" was the
> > best natural language phrase I could come up with. (So Tat Tvam Asi,
> > does it for me Scott. DMB "blasphemous" one with "god", but no
> > distinct "god", stuff works for me too.)
>
> So - just to get clear - are you saying that the word 'individual' has a
> substantive sense in the MoQ? If so, I welcome you to the ranks of the
> heretics :o)
>
> >
> > Theism / Atheism / Antitheism ?
> > This only becomes a battle "against" theism, when theists bring their
> > god into their explanations and applications of it, the MoQ. Until
> > then it's just not-theistic, just not a "relevant" issue. (See the
> > line in the sand below.)
>
> If it's not relevant, why include it? This isn't a hill I want to die on,
> though, simply because RMP says that the MoQ is atheistic. I think he's
> drawing on a superficial understanding of the western tradition - in common
> with the majority understanding in our culture - but I'm not going to bang
> my head against the wall about it.
>
> > The Heretics ?
> > Sam, again I hope I chose my words carefully, to be clear without
> > causing offence. I wouldn't want the heretics to leave, but I would
> > want them to recognise a line drawn in the sand in the debating arena
> > (toe the line says DMB) - debates about details of the MoQ and its
> > progress vs meta-debates about the relationship of MoQ to alternative
> > views.
>
> Well, where would you put my 'eudaimonic' thesis - which stands
> independently of Christian faith (and xn faith is quite obviously outside
> the purview of the MOQ)? In other words, if a person sees conceptual
> problems in the 'moq as received', and suggests a solution which (to their
> mind) solves the problem - does this mean that they're a heretic or not? Are
> we allowed to 'improve' the MoQ? (gasps of horror in the serried ranks) I
> think that's what we're here for - I think that's how RMP envisions our role
> as well.
>
> To put that differently, I'm quite happy to shelve Christianity most of the
> time, but the philosophical criticisms of the MoQ I see as legitimate
> subjects for debate. That's why I raised the 'how do intellectual patterns
> respond to Quality' thread - on which, it would seem, I have made my point.
> As with several points on MF (eg the 'machine language interface') where I
> have argued for elements of my eudaimonic proposal in detail, and my
> position seems, by and large, to have been accepted by the
> _sensus_fidelium_.
>
> > So, give MoQ a chance was probably all I was really saying (together
> > with a definition of what I meant by MoQ when I said it.)
> >
> > I'll wait for any more responses, but I'd like to achieve a terse
> > "definition" of the "truths", on the MoQ side of that line in the
> > sand.
>
> I don't know if - or how recently - you looked at my eudaimonic paper, but
> the first part of it was precisely an attempt to capture the 'truth's of the
> MoQ side of that line in the sand - in order to make my own perspective
> clearer.
>
> Cheers
> Sam
>
> "The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned
> man who is proud of his large cell."
> Simone Weil
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Aug 08 2005 - 15:16:34 BST