-I'm starting to believe that religion might have had more than a little of
-the truth when it said that only faith put us into contact with the divine.
-But faith for many is mistaken for blind belief. Beware.
It's possible the definition of faith has changed, but blind belief is the
only meaning for faith I am familiar with. Possibly because of the words
over use in hopeless circumstances in media, or in the clash between science
and religious worldviews, but what is faith if it is not blind belief?
I am not very religious, but I believe in many things of which I am sure are
true, however, they could prove not to be. In a sense, I have faith that
these things are true, but that is my belief, and by devoting to them I
might unintentionally ignore the evidence flying in the face of my belief.
How does one have belief in something and incorperate it into their
interpretation of reality without resisting evidence against it? When a
worldview is broken, you begin question everything. Did my watch ACTUALLY
disappear from the universe? One does everything possibly to make sure to
defend their worldview, nobody wants to be left questioning reality once
again. I'll use myself as an example, SOM was broken for me by quantum
physics, how very small things do not behave like objects any more, which
meant that even objects weren't made up of objects. I ignored quantum
physics for a while though, I passed it off as something that the scientists
must have misinterpreted, or that it was "too hard" for me to understand.
Once I understood and believed it however, the foundation of SOM fell apart.
Only once I found another broader worldview did I realize that even though
SOM might not be complete, it still works in many instances. By ignoring
quantum physics for three years though, my belief in SOM was reaffirmed, it
slowly ate away at it though, digging into my subconscious until one moment
of clarity when I knew that SOM was broken. It seems that the more belief
you do have in any worldview, the more blinded you become to alternate
worldviews. So even if every worldview might lead to the divine by having
unquestioning faith, what's the point if it's all in your head anyway?
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On
Behalf Of Denis Poisson
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 5:08 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
>Hi Dennis,
Hi, Victoria
[BTW, it is Denis, only one "n"]
>
>Just read your essay, which spun me out!
>
>>>The Self is therefore the patterned, static, known aspect of an
>individual.
>
>I loved your essay, but I can't imagine anything more depressing
>than defining my Self as just "the patterned, static, known aspect of an
>individual".
The Self is what defines you, at any given moment. It is the sum of your
reflexes, knowledge, memories and habits, the patterns that makes you what
you are. Of course those patterns are confronted with the flux of everyday
experiences, and are subject to change. But DQ isn't a pattern, it's an
event. It is change itself. The reason I didn't include DQ in my definition
is that it would have inserted a "soul-like" element in the notion of Self,
and I do not believe that DQ is separable into soul "units". While I agree
that we are more than a collection of patterns, that is only because we are
part of a greater whole. The Self is only that small fraction of Quality
that we are aware of.
The MoQ is a collection of concepts that cannot grasp the totality of our
experience, but that does not ignore what it cannot put into little boxes.
It calls the unknown Quality.
Glenn and John are calling it myth or fiction only because they cannot see
that they are themselves living in a fiction. The MoQ is the idea that any
system of thought is a fiction, even itself. There are good fictions and bad
ones, but to attack the MoQ on the basis that it cannot prove the existence
of DQ, or that it isn't "an objective phenomena" (you should read your posts
before sending them, Glenn, this one really had me laughing ;) is plain
short ridiculous. Any system can be attacked in this manner, because
objective truth itself isn't "an objective phenomena". :)
>Isn't DQ as much a part of us (albight an indefinable part) as the SPoV?
>I can sit here right now and pretty much trace most of my character as it
>has developed through the biological, social and intellectual SPoV.
However,
>there is an undeniable sense of the DQ which is just as much a part of my
>Self
>(and indeed the universe), and which makes life so much more beautiful and
>hopeful.
>And it is because it is a part of me, I am able to recognise it in things
>which are apart from my SPoV makeup,
>Such as in any of the arts when they are indeed Art or even in nature where
>you can stand in awe at the power of it even as it is encoded in SPoV.
Exact, Victoria, the beauty of unformed truth can only be expressed in
non-rational modes. This is the reason why we are all attracted to art, and
find so much meaning in it. It calls on the unity of Quality, it makes us
part of the thing observed, and reminds us that we are connected by more
than chains of cause/consequence. It isn't a mystic experience, but it
points at it.
>And if that Quality (or Goodness or Value) which gives rise to all things
is
>a part of me also, I guess I can relax and have a little faith in it (and
>myself) and there by be more free to follow it.
>
Denis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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@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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST