From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 13 2004 - 09:27:36 BST
Hi Mark (also group if there's anyone at all interested in this out there, which I rather doubt),
<sigh>
This is exactly what I thought might happen with this thread. Done to death by ignorance and
prejudice. For the avoidance of ambiguity I'll answer Mark's points, but without any expectation of
it generating a meaningful conversation, as opposed to rhetorical incompetence and malice. Here
goes.
First the notion of 'hypocrisy'. As I understand it that's what you call someone who makes an
accusation that they are themselves guilty of. So, for example, when you launch a tirade for my
"ignoring" (aka telling you that I wasn't going to go into) your questions of 11.4.04, when you have
just done exactly the same with my questions from the previous post, in particular "I am explicitly
proposing a change - a variant type of MoQ, and the change is, I would argue, comparatively minor.
(It keeps what I see as the major building blocks of the MoQ completely intact). I see that as a
legitimate endeavour, especially within this forum. Do you consider it illegitimate? If so, are we
only allowed exegesis of the sacred text or are we permitted to explore variations to Scripture?"
and "Is it the 'meddling' that's the problem, or the fact that I do it from a Christian
perspective?"
Anyway, lets work through your 'points' from 11.4.04.
> PART. 1.
> 1. Mark 11-4-04: Hello Sam, you suggest your variant MoQ... Ignored.
Full quotation: "you suggest your variant MoQ makes minor changes to the standard MoQ. However, it
would appear your changes allow for the following:
1. Heaven.
2. Resurrection to immortal life in Heaven.
3. Virgin birth.
4. Miracles.
I do not find these changes minor."
This was, at least in form, a serious assertion. My answer (note - this point was NOT ignored,
contrary to Mark's assertion) was: "I don't believe I have ever argued that those elements are
necessary parts of the MoQ - have I?" In other words, I chose to focus on the key question about
what counts as necessary parts of the MoQ. As I see it, accepting the main planks of the MoQ
involves accepting Quality as the central (indefinable) term, using Static Quality and Dynamic
Quality to refer to aspects of our experience that we can in some way talk about, and accepting that
Static Quality can be classified according to particular levels, in particular that the third level
is social and that the fourth level includes an intellectual appreciation of that social level. I
accept all of those things; where I object is that I think 'intellectual' is too narrow a
description of the fourth level. But I've gone into that loads of times. In saying that we cannot do
without mythologies and mythical language, I am only making Wittgenstein's point that an entire
mythology is embedded in our language, and consequently, we can no more have intellect without
mythology than we can have intellect without eating food - the higher level is wholly dependent on
the proper functioning of the lower level. The question of what counts as 'good food' at the social
level is a question you don't seem willing to explore (it's what I thought this thread was about).
Specifically, by saying 'I do not find these changes minor' you're confusing the conceptual point
about 'good food at the social level' - which is a point about the MoQ - with the substantive point
that Christianity is good food - which is independent of the MoQ, as I see it.
> 2. Mark 11-4-04: So would Christianity. Ignored.
Full quotation:
Mark earlier: > The MoQ does not need it [referring to my eudaimonic modification]
Sam said: I disagree.
Mark 11-4-04: So would Christianity. This explains why you disagree.
The reason why I simply said "I disagree" was because I have expanded on my disagreement at length,
both in an essay published on the website and in some fairly thorough subsequent discussions on the
list (not least under scrutiny from Wim). You simply assert an identity between my beliefs and
'Christianity' as if the fact that I am a Christian necessitates an absence of independent thought.
That is precisely why I referred to your arguments as based upon prejudice, for you are not engaging
with the substance of my position, only disparaging it - and thereby relying on certain social level
static patterns current in our society - thus, in a re-run of the hypocrisy point, demonstrating
your lack of independent thought by recycling other people's arguments. The reason why I ignored
this point was because I didn't see anything there worth engaging with.
> 3. Mark 11-4-04: Many people who are not Christians... Ignored.
Full quotation: Mark 11-4-04: Many people who are not Christians and who have spent a great deal of
time studying philosophy and the MoQ do not reject an intellectual level of the MoQ. That these
people do not feel it quite necessary to 'go into it ad nauseam' should not delude you into
believing you are being persuasive.
This was an appeal to authority, viz those 'who have spent a great deal of time studying philosophy
and the MoQ'. As such it is a very weak argument. Moreover, if we're going to get into a debate
about penis size - oops, I should have said, academically accredited philosophical competence, I
have no reasons for insecurity on that score. Again, the reason why I ignored this point was because
I didn't see anything there worth engaging with.
> 4. Mark 11-4-04: I know from our previous (brief) discussions... Ignored.
Full quotation: Mark 11-4-04: I know from our previous (brief) discussions that your understanding
of what the good life is, is based on religious belief. The good life, in your understanding, must
be broadly compatible with Christian beliefs. My understanding of the good life is not based upon
Christian beliefs, but on an enquiry into Quality. That enquiry involves the free range of
intellectual activity, and affirms intellectual activity to be derived from Quality. However, you
begin with a conformity and then shape what intellect would have to be in order to affirm that
conformity. The above i feel to be a reasoned argument and not rhetorical gesturing, and any
question begging begins and ends with your beliefs Sam.
Firstly, my understanding of the good life is not 'based on' religious belief. I am not an
essentialist or foundationalist. I find that the Christian mythology enables a good life, and having
sampled alternatives, including secular atheism, I haven't yet found a higher Quality alternative.
If I do, my views will change. In that regard I don't see any inhibition to the 'free range of
intellectual activity' - if I did, I'd hardly be a contributor to this forum, would I? So, when you
say "you begin with a conformity and then shape what intellect would have to be in order to affirm
that conformity" I say "that is not the case". But then, that would be simply an appeal to my own
expertise and pretty poor as arguments go - which is the content of your last sentence above. In
other words, as a result of your prejudice (Christians lack the capacity for sceptical and
independent thought) you place my views into a particular box marked 'low Quality intellectual
indeavour' and then attack the box. You fail to engage with my arguments as they stand. The point
about hypocrisy comes to mind again. And once again, the reason why I ignored this point was because
I didn't see anything there worth engaging with.
> 5. Mark 11-4-04: The statement, 'People, like all those... Ignored.
Full quotation: Mark said > Christians, like all those who adhere to rigid static social patterns,
Sam replied: I find this 'globalising' mode of argument vacuous. It's a bit like saying, 'people,
like all those who adhere to rigid static biological patterns' when the point at issue is whether
'people' describes biological or social entities (or some other combination).
Mark 11-4-04: The statement, 'People, like all those who adhere to rigid static biological patterns'
is not vacuous, it is accurate. All people adhere to Biological patterns of value, and these
patterns are, from an evolutionary perspective, very static. The statement, 'Christians, like all
those who adhere to rigid static social
patterns,' is similarly not vacuous: Christianity IS a range of static social patterns of value.
All you've done here, Mark, is reassert your original point, rather than offer an argument which
engages with my criticism. The point at issue is whether in fact it is true that Christians can be
identified with the social pattern of value that they accept, in other words, whether it is true
that to be a Christian means that you cannot function intellectually. Hence my point about vacuity,
for you are assuming the truth of your position when you make your assertion, and I am contesting
that assumption. To simply repeat your point doesn't make it any stronger. Once again, the reason
why I ignored this point was because I didn't see anything there worth engaging with.
> 6. Mark 11-4-04: Christianity also includes a range... Mostly Ignored.
Mark 11-4-04: Christianity also includes a range of Intellectual values. Your problem is
accommodating social and Intellectual values into a coherent relationship. You do this by
experiencing the need to make what you term, 'minor changes' to the standard MoQ. But the MoQ
doesn't need it, but you disagree, and why do you disagree? And here we go again, around the
Mulberry bush...
I'm glad that you accept that Christianity can include intellectual values, although that would seem
to undermine your argument, for you assert what 'my problem' is and you again imply that my
disagreement is based on 'blind' faith, rather than a reasoned perception. As such this is simply a
further example of your prejudice. Once again, the reason why I ignored this point was because I
didn't see anything there worth engaging with.
> 7. Mark 11-4-04: A coherent patterned relationship... Ignored.
Full quotation:
Mark earlier> Christians, like all those who adhere to rigid static social patterns, must form a
coherent relationship with DQ.
Sam asked: What counts as a 'coherent' relationship? Are you saying it needs to be conceptualised?
Mark 11-4-04: A coherent patterned relationship is self supporting in the MoQ. That is to say, it
does not require a witness watching in order to convey meaning. Such a relationship may cohere in a
static repertoire of intellectual patterns of value; a repertoire which is evolving in the event
stream towards DQ. The witness Christians require in order to convey meaning to everything is God.
In order for you to be able to exist in a self supporting relationship of this nature, you, as
Spinoza suggests, would have to be an attribute and therefore included in the being of God. If you
move along this line of argument, you may find yourself developing a description of God which
becomes indistinguishable from DQ? No changes, 'minor' or otherwise required.
Firstly, your initial comment contained your foundational prejudice again ('Christians, like all
those who adhere to rigid static social patterns...' - this needs to be argued for, not just
asserted. If it was argued for it wouldn't be a prejudice). So my question was - in an attempt to
get beyond the prejudice - aimed at finding out how you viewed the relationship between static
patterns and DQ (which I have now found out the answer to by reading your essay, which I broadly
agree with). I didn't find your answer particularly clear; in so far as I understood it I didn't
object to it, except that I would identify God with Quality, not Dynamic Quality.
> 8. Mark 11-4-04: I'm glad you ask this question... Ignored.
Full quotation: Mark 11-4-04: I'm glad you ask this question, because i, at least, find it
exceptionally fascinating. You see, what i'm suggesting it that 'Art' comes
before your description of the MoQ. You have developed what you regard as a version of the MoQ which
serves your patterning, and this activity may be done well or poorly, but the art of your endeavour
is prior to the endeavour itself - Quality. In fact, the 'standard' MoQ tells us this! That is
another reason why your changes are harmful.
I found this a non sequitur. Your last sentence didn't seem to follow on from the earlier elements,
which seemed uncontentious (and certainly highly compatible with eudaimonia). So I didn't know what
to say.
> PART 2.
> 9. Mark 11-4-04: So you say. And next you... Ignored.
Full quotation:
Mark earlier:> You try to do this well by introducing Eudaemonic notions which protect static social
convention
Sam responds: 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?
Your initial comment showed an incomprehension of my eudaimonic argument, which is built around the
idea that there is a stable pattern of fourth level values which is independent of static social
conventions, and which can criticique them in order to improve them (just like the 'standard'
intellectual level, but - I would say - with greater coherence). Your secondary argument simply
displayed your prejudice again, viz that accepting those elements disqualifies a person from
intellectual debate. Once again, the reason why I ignored this point was because I didn't see
anything there worth engaging with.
> 10. Mark 11-4-04: Are you seriously... Ignored.
Full quotation: 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?
There are embedded assumptions in your question about the nature of faith, viz that it is a
cognitive endeavour analagous to scientific enterprise, through which the Truth about the world is
discerned and given propositional form. I don't share those assumptions, so I see no contradiction
in asserting that Christianity is built around a mythology and that Christianity is true.
> 11. Mark 11-4-04: I see. God is not the ultimate source... Ignored.
Full quotation: 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.
Not having read your essay when I made my point, I was unclear as to what 'DQ/SQ coherence was
referring to'. Now that I have understood it, I see it as agreeing entirely with my approach to the
MoQ. As for the point about the good, the language is framed in essentialist terms, which I don't
see as adequate. Standard theological point, as it happens, so feel free to run it by any Christians
you like.
> 12. Mark 11-4-04: And the Good with what? Ignored.
Not ignored. Answered by reference to the discussion in MD in March 2003.
> 13. 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.
This was just bluster - and the point about Heaven etc was answered in point 1 above. I repeat "by
saying 'I do not find these changes minor' you're confusing the conceptual point about 'good food at
the social level' - which is a point about the MoQ - with the substantive point that Christianity is
good food - which is independent of the MoQ, as I see it."
> GROUP: Please note point 13 anticipates Sam's actual response.
I find it interesting that you are appealing to the 'crowd'. Sure sign of philosophology rather than
genuine philosophical enquiry. Especially as the point you make is untrue.
> 14. Mark 11-4-04: The problem is that you have no... Ignored.
Full quotation Mark 11-4-04: The problem is that you have no aesthetic and moral sense of the damage
you could be doing.
This was an ad hominem attack with no relevance to the debate at hand, and so not meriting a
considered response.
> 15. Mark 11-4-04: Well, i am not. Theistic concerns... Ignored.
Full quotation: Mark 11-4-04: Well, i am not. Theistic concerns are, by their nature, very largely
patterned in social values.
Again, simply reiterating your prejudice doesn't give it any greater philosophical weight. Once
again, the reason why I ignored this point was because I didn't see anything there worth engaging
with.
> 16. Mark 11-4-04: The best religion is the one... Answered!
It was the only point where I thought we might gain a meeting of minds.
> 17. Mark 11-4-04: I would rather not go into your debate... Answer not
> required.
An answer from me wasn't required, but an answer from you is. Specifically, you have ignored what I
see as the most relevant questions in this forum, being
"I am explicitly proposing a change - a variant type of MoQ, and the change is, I would argue,
comparatively minor. (It keeps what I see as the major building blocks of the MoQ completely
intact). I see that as a legitimate endeavour, especially within this forum. Do you consider it
illegitimate? If so, are we only allowed exegesis of the sacred text or are we permitted to explore
variations to Scripture?"
and
"Is it the 'meddling' that's the problem, or the fact that I do it from a Christian perspective?"
I would appreciate answers to those questions before proceeding any further.
> There you have it: 17 points, 14 totally ignored, 1 partially answered, 1
> actually answered, 1 not requiring an answer.
> Of the 16 points that require an answer, 1 and a bit answered. Non of the
> really meaty MoQ concerns addressed what so ever.
Well, as I see it, you haven't engaged with the MoQ relevant points yourself, you've just been
shaking the tea in your teacup around and indulging your prejudices. You didn't raise any 'really
meaty MoQ concerns' - you just showed your ignorance of the subject matter of this thread.
> I've met some ignorant people in my life, and some of the worst have been
> Christians. Work it out for yourself.
Ah yes, that hypocrisy point again. I very much hope that people do work things out for themselves.
In particular, I hope it's something that you can start to do before too long.
BTW, on a personal note, my wife is seven days overdue for giving birth to our second child. If I
don't make another reply in this thread it will have more to do with real-life concerns than an
'embarrassed' silence. The very thought!!
Sam
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 Apr 13 2004 - 14:36:52 BST