I agree with your sentiments entirely. I truly do see the absurdity of my
statement and in doing so, of religion in general. The difference between my
words and their meaning is subtle, but that difference is what we are
talking about. Definitions are at the heart of this debate. Anyone can
categorize quality, narrow it down into the subjective definition of God.
How do you explain Quality to a young child? How do they explain it to their
children? How do you explain quality to someone who hasn't heard of it
before, who has experienced much less of the world than we have, with a
language much less rich than the one we have. You simplify it, while trying
and keep the core effect the same, which is what I think DID happen. Quality
is not a new idea my friends. The definition of quality has evolved, but
Quality has stayed the same. God today was once Quality, but now it is
absurd to call them the same thing. Anyone who believes in religion though
will most likely see past that.
What happens if one person's definition, say the Pope's, becomes the
official definition of Quality? Won't his interpretation be altered by his
own experience? What about when he teaches the next Pope who will be the
next to define Quality, there could easily be things lost across the
generation. Each person attempted to keep "the word" intact, but it's just
impossible with that number of iterations. Won't the definition of Quality
be warped in the passing along like that telephone game we used to play as a
kid? Without anything correcting the definition as it goes, will the
definition have any meaning thousands of years down the road? Surprisingly
yes. Even if only a few can see the similarity.
The intellectual level has emerged, Quality is something we can all see. We
don't have to blindly follow "the word" to find quality. We can see it for
ourselves. The intellectual level is self correcting. It would be very
difficult for the definition of quality move that far from it's meaning in
our system, no one person has the power to define over and above the use by
millions of individuals. (a good example of this is "postal" which has
entered into the dictionary because of it's frequent use) For every person
who is wrong about the definition of quality in one direction, there is
another who is wrong in the other direction, keeping the system stable. A
very good static latch.
That's what I mean when I say that they are analogous. The definitions of
the words are not analogous, but I think, the meanings are.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Dave Moller
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:59 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD We are God
Not really in relation to a specific post but the
general topic.
I've witnessed similar discussions in various forums
and one thing that always strikes me is what are we
doing.
There are traditional fundamental views of god. Ie
the bible is literal and true. These groups rely on
faith, as in I don't necessarily have tangible
evidence for my beliefs but I have faith that they are
true. I have respect for people who can make this
leap of faith even though I don't think I could, it
takes enough faith for me to believe that tomorrow
will be reasonably consistent with today.
Then you have groups that decide, "hang about, what we
believe could be termed god". or "we are god". The
process they work through to justify their use of the
label is always an interesting one to witness and
often it is hard to fault the logic.
But... there is a major difference between the
application of "God" as a label for say dynamic
quality and the faith of traditional believers. I
don't need to make a leap of faith or believe anything
beyond my world view to take the label and stick it on
what I currently believe. So what have I achieved.
I'm now carrying the word "God" around with me but I
would still never put myself in the same category as
the traditional believers because I've only taken the
label by redifining it.
As silly analogy (my favourite tool). I have some
vodka on my desk. Now on analysis I find that it is
clear, colourless and (nearly) flavourless. Well, I
can't see any characteristics that are different from
water so I will now call it water. I haven't cured my
alcoholism, I haven't turned the vodka into water, all
I have done is redifined what water is to include the
substance formerly known as vodka.
Just my soapbox worth.
Later all
Dave
____________________________________________________________
Nokia Game is on again.
Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new
all media adventure before November 3rd.
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 - 16:01:34 BST