On faith :-
There is no sensory or perceptual quality which is not rooted in faith!
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: "drose" <donangel@nlci.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 21 March 2000 03:33
Subject: Re: MD Not so silent again!
> Hi, Horse and MoQer's.
>
> Horse said:
>
> >A state of mind that leads people to accept something in the total
absence
> of supporting
> >evidence.
>
> My Webster's gives "confidence or trust in a person or thing" as the
primary
> definition of "faith." "Loyalty, fidelity to a person, promise or
> commitment" comes in second. Your definition comes in third.
>
> Of course we must have faith in our lives, else we would carry our
> possessions about with us. We learn from an early age to trust that Mom
> and/or Dad will come back when they leave the room. We exercise faith in a
> thousand ways every day. Your paper money is worthless without it. So are
> contracts.
>
> Faith is so basic a part of the social level that the social level could
not
> exist without it. To say that the intellectual level can exist without
faith
> is like saying it could exist without the biological level, which is
absurd.
>
> Each level of Pirsig's metaphysic "inter-is" with every other level. Just
as
> there is no real S-O dichotomy, so the levels are not discrete.
>
> BTW, Pirsig, or so I gather, is discussing two different metaphysics in
ZMM
> and Lila. At various times, he is discussing either individual or societal
> evolution. On the face of it, to say that the intellectual level only came
> into existence in1911 or so is ridiculous, unless he is applying that
> statement to society and not the individual. Obviously there have been
many
> humans prior to 1911 who were operating in all 4 levels. Individuals drive
> societal evolution.
>
> Gads, I have digressed. Look, suppose it is possible to live without
faith,
> if one goes strictly by your definition, although I can't imagine how. It
> would require at it's core the acceptance of the premise of no absolute
> reality; no Quality, if you will. It would be a grim existence, I think,
and
> after all based on an unproveable premise (faith, again).
>
> Reason supports (God-Absolute Reality-Quality) just as it can
(No-God-etc.)
> Reason itself is only supported by faith in human interpretation of
> phenomena. Where does one draw the line?
>
> I'd forgotten what fun this is.
>
> Comments?
>
> drose
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST