From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 01:43:48 BST
PART. 1.
Hi Mark,
This is exactly what I thought might happen with this thread. Done to death
by ignorance and
prejudice.
Mark 13-4-04: You have already agreed with me that one cannot distinguish
between an individual who practices Universal Love minus theistic convictions,
with on who practices Universal Love plus theistic convictions. If UL is what
amounts to living a Good life, then the good life does not have to be a
religious one. Unless you are going to insist that one cannot practice Universal Love
unless one holds theistic conviction?
If so, you are being ignorant and you are prejudging Sam.
Mark 13-4-04: It may be argued that it is the character of Christian enquiry
to hold the following principle: All conclusions from enquiry must not be
blasphemous.
In other words, pre-judgement. Avoiding the consequences of enquiry if they
to happen to be blasphemous is ignorance.
Sam:
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.
Mark 13-4-04: Agree. You accuse me of giving globalised arguments.
But, if Sam Norton had been born into a culture which had not been introduced
to Christianity, Sam Norton would not be a Christian. It is Christianity's
business to become a Global phenomena, and to this end it has been successful -
it is difficult to for any culture today to remain uninfluenced by
Christianity. So, to accuse ME of globalising arguments when you are a member of a
movement which aims at global influence is hypocritical isn't it?
> PART. 1.
1. My answer... ...that Christianity is good food - which is independent of
the MoQ, as I see it.
Mark 13-4-04: Nothing is independent of the MoQ. This is a killer argument.
The MoQ provides a fundamental description of everything.
2. 'Christianity' as if the fact that I am a Christian necessitates an
absence of independent thought.
Mark 13-4-04: Christianity does 'necessitate an absence of independent
thought.
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.
If this is so, and as far as i can see it must be so, otherwise you would be
holding contradictory world views, Sam Norton may indulge in the activity of
independent thought, but in doing so, Sam Norton must not conclude
blasphemously. This helps explain Sam Norton's dislike of:
1. The MoQ.
2. Memes.
Both of the above have appalling implications for theistic Belief systems; 1.
explains them in terms of patterns of value, 2. attempts to explain them as
non-organic 'cultural' replicators.
Sam:
3. 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.
Mark 13-4-04: It is not an argument weak or otherwise, it is an empirical
observation. The MoQ tells us this is the way it is. You are once again
displaying your ignorance of the MoQ Sam.
Ideas (Intellectual patterns of value) need authority to survive. IP'sV need
social approval to catch on. When the MoQ, as an IPV has sufficient social
approval it will have caught on, and this is a threat to those who approve your
ideas.
While charming and innocent, many adults need a bit more than, "Mummy and
Daddy say Jesus popped out of Mary's Tummy without any prior sexual intercourse"
before they believe it.
4. 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.
Mark 13-4-04: I find that many Children, 'find that the Christian mythology
enables a good life' as you put it. But adults understand the stories they tell
their children are mere stories. Do you seriously advocate a societal wide
theatre of story telling employing full costume and props? The costumes being
clerical robes and props being cathedrals? Are you THAT dangerous Sam?
Sam:
If I do, my views will change.
Mark 13-4-04: I see, this is all contingent is it? You are not a Christian,
you simply wear the garb of a Christian. I understand now!
Sam:
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?
Mark 13-4-04: No. I apologise Sam. I have been holding the wrong end of the
stick. Sorry.
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".
Mark 13-4-04: Yes, i see that clearly now.
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.
Mark 13-4-04: That is not fair. If you made it more clear that you are an
actor pretending to be a Christian because it makes for good living, then i would
not have challenged you. You are prostituting yourself; selling yourself as a
commodity to be used and to use Christianity for personal and family gain.
You don't have any other consideration for the good other than garnering a good
life for yourself and your family.
I invite everyone to read Robert Pirsig's Introduction to Anthony McWatt's
'Introduction to the Metaphysics of Quality' and contemplate the difference.
Sam:
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
endeavour' and then attack the box.
Mark 13-4-04: Shhhhhhhhhh! Someone might hear you? You are only pretending to
be a Christian, remember? You are not actually a Christian. You don't
actually believe all those stories, you just go along with them.
Of course, the ones who DO believe it? Well, that's got nothing to do with
you has it?
Nope. This has all been a misunderstanding on my part, for which i have and
continue to apologise for.
Sam:
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.
Mark 13-4-04: But you are the biggest hypocrite of all. You trick others into
thinking you are a Christian when you simply say what has to be said in order
to appear as one; you simply argue what must be argued to reinforce as one. I
think the latter is taking your part too seriously mind you!
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 : Wed Apr 14 2004 - 02:23:25 BST