Hi Denis:
> But do not, even for a moment, be fooled by the notion that a new metaphysic
> can put you in touch with the fundamental ground-stuff of the universe. No
> metaphysics, no science, no story is able to do that. Not even the MOQ.
Au contraire mon ami. It wasn't until I read and grasped the MOQ that I
got in touch with the fundamental ground-stuff of the universe--
experience prior to thought . . . pure awareness . . . Quality. Whenever I
wish to get in touch with it, I simply say, "Stop. Look." The immediate
silence that follows is "It."
The nice thing about a map is that by following it you can get to where
you want to be. Of course, the MOQ is not the only map that can direct
you to the fundamental ground stuff, but for me it's the best. For John
B., a better map is found in the writings of Ken Wilber. For Sam, it may
be "systematic theology." Others are still looking for the map that is
best for them. But I dare say all of us here on this site are map-addicts,
confident that following a guide is better than taking off in all directions.
> It's not "better to prove", because it is *impossible* to prove anything
> beyond the shadow of a doubt. Do not take my word for it, read some Karl
> Popper. Only tautological truths are absolute.
Is that a tautological truth? Is Popper's claim that it is impossible to
prove anything beyond the shadow of doubt a "fuzzy" claim or an
absolute truth? If fuzzy (since it is impossible to prove), why is it any
better than the belief that some things can be proven beyond a shadow
of a doubt. Why believe Popper anyway?
I find it so hard to disagree with anything you write, Denis, that I get
perverse satisfaction from finding something in your posts to question.
Platt
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 - 16:01:41 BST