From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Tue Apr 13 2004 - 22:29:05 BST
PART. 3.
Sam:
15. 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.
Mark 13-4-04: If we take the following:
1. It may be argued that it is the character of Christian enquiry to hold the
following principle: All conclusions to enquiry must not be blasphemous.
2. Nothing is independent of the MoQ. This is a killer argument. The MoQ
provides a fundamental description of everything.
You can understand that i am arguing my point and not displaying prejudice.
In fact, we may rearrange 2 as:
3. In order for Christian enquiry to avoid blasphemy, conclusions must be
prejudged.
Of course, all this is beside the point if you are merely pretending to be a
Christian in order to provide yourself with a good life. However, you appear
to want your cake and eat it? You wish to argue for the truth of myths -
stories. Crucially, MoQ stories, narratives, static patterns of quality must be open
to empirical verification.
While it is so that it may be empirically verified that Christian myths
exist, this does not make them true. It makes them have value. From an Intellectual
perspective, Christian myths have far less Quality than Intellectual myths
like the narrative or story of the electron.
Sam:
"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).
Mark 13-4-04: Not so. My approach explains Christianity, as does that found
in Lila. You state you regard your approach to the MoQ separate from
Christianity. You have to do this, and do it as cleverly and as sneakily as all your
cunning and Intellectual inventiveness may allow. You fail poorly Sam, very
poorly indeed.
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?"
Mark 13-4-04: It would be better for you had you understood the MoQ before
you began your changes. You evidently either do not agree with, or understand
that which you feel requires changing.
and
"Is it the 'meddling' that's the problem, or the fact that I do it from a
Christian perspective?"
Mark 13-4-04: I think it is a lack of understanding, and an inability to want
to which compounds the problem for you.
I know you 'think' you are clever Sam? But you are merely clever, as Plato
would say. And clever people do not always understand Sam. That you do not
understand is evidenced in the following simple statement:
"...Christianity is good food - which is independent of the MoQ, as I see
it."
Now, now! I know! Before you start, i know.
"Yes, but where is the context," you ask?
But we don't need one: Nothing is independent from the MoQ. The MoQ is a
description of everything as value. No, Sam. You do not understand. And our
approaches to the MoQ are not compatible. Sorry.
I would appreciate answers to those questions before proceeding any further.
Mark 13-4-04: Too much Sam. Too much. The crowd have already seen the real
you. Too late. Too late to make demands you have amply demonstrated that you
would not have acceded to yourself, had not the shame of the crowd touched your
sweating brow.
Sam:
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.
Mark 13-4-04: I may be ignorant of many things, but i believe when it comes
to the MoQ i have it about right Sam. If i need correcting, i shall welcome the
opportunity to learn from those who understand better than i.
> 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.
Mark 13-4-04: You can give it a rest now Sam, you are over doing the act.
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
Mark 13-4-04: I'm not going anywhere, so it can wait. I suppose this means
you won't be responding to the MF garbage you posted there either? That stuff
about value metaphysics and process ontology undermining God and self theorists
should have your head back in the texts books?
I wish your wife and new baby all the best,
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 : Tue Apr 13 2004 - 22:30:53 BST