From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sun Apr 11 2004 - 22:46:54 BST
PART 2.
> You try
> to do this well by introducing Eudaemonic notions which protect static
social
> convention
No I do not. That's the reverse of what I'm trying to do.
Mark 11-4-04: So you say. And next you will announce to the world that you do
not actually believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he did not perform
miracles, and that was not resurrected?
> while attempting to accommodate intellectual freedoms - but you
> also negate absolute intellectual freedom to understand the Good.
You need to justify the criticism in that last clause. At the moment there
seems nothing to respond
to. In what way am I negating 'absolute intellectual freedom'?
Mark 11-4-04: Are you seriously telling us all Sam that, as a Christian, you
can indeed fully hold in doubt Jesus was the son of God, that he performed
miracles, and that was resurrected? That there is life ever after in Heaven for
those who believe? Are you seriously telling us all that you can regard all
this a metaphor, simile, etc, dismiss it as nothing which may be empirically
verified, unlike Quality, which is hard to deny?
Does the empirical stretch to revelation? If so, why is revelation patterned
in such detail, or is the detail also revelation?
> For you, the Good is equated with God and not DQ/SQ coherence.
Disagree - in so far as I understand the point.
Mark 11-4-04: I see. God is not the ultimate source of all that is good.
Fine. The next time i talk to another Christian i shall be sure to run that one by
him. It will be a 'him' because there are so few women actually working in
the Church, and the one i have in mind does work for the Church.
What makes you think that? I would equate God with
Quality, by and large. I would equate DQ/SQ coherence with the mystical path
(apophatic/capophatic) - something I'll be saying more on in MF before too
long.
Mark 11-4-04: And the Good with what? I stated, 'For you, the Good is equated
with God and not DQ/SQ coherence.'
> I don't bother myself with your static Quality very often because i have
> better things to do.
Thank you for returning from your nirvana to share your enlightenment with
mere mortals ;-)
Mark 11-4-04: Well, if you answer ALL the questions in this post and don't
wriggle out of the ones regarding Heaven, Resurrection, etc i shall leave you to
hang yourself by your own whatsit. I don't enjoy encouraging people like you
to sound self contradictory and daft; it's too easy and down right cruel in my
view.
> But i wished to make these comments for the benefit of anyone
> else who finds Christian meddling with the MoQ offensive.
Is it the 'meddling' that's the problem, or the fact that I do it from a
Christian perspective?
Mark 11-4-04: The problem is that you have no aesthetic and moral sense of
the damage you could be doing.
If the former, I think you're trying to create a closed system which is
antithetical to the aims of
both Pirsig and the majority of contributors to the forum.
Mark 11-4-04: Well, i am not. Theistic concerns are, by their nature, very
largely patterned in social values.
This thread was explicitly set up to
explore questions of if or whether one particular religion had more Quality
than another - and I'm
just one voice. Is it the entire thread you object to? Then why not ignore
it?
Mark 11-4-04: The best religion is the one best practised i should have
thought? The best practised religions are those which practice Universal Love. You
would not be able to distinguish one who practices Universal Love and does not
hold a theistic perspective, and one who does.
That you ask the question with an implicit notion that theism is at all
necessary is what I object to as a matter of fact.
If the latter I think you should be open about your prejudices, and list
which perspectives you'd
like to see barred from contributing to the discussion. From my point of view
I think that the
boundaries of discourse in the forum need to be set as widely as possible.
That's the burden of my
current debate with Matt - I think he's articulating a closed system, and ANY
system which closes
itself off becomes self-referential, and therefore hampered in its openness
to Dynamic Quality.
Which I think we would agree was a bad thing.
Sam
Mark 11-4-04: I would rather not go into your debate with Matt. As far as
boundaries are concerned, you have a number of those yourself. They are formed by
your adherence to the Christian faith, unless i am mistaken.
Mark
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 : Sun Apr 11 2004 - 22:48:46 BST