Re: MD MOQ and Rational Belief

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Aug 20 2004 - 17:28:29 BST

  • Next message: Chris Phoenix: "Off-topic? physical pain vs. suffering (was Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil)"

    Good morning....Mark,

    msh:
    > No. The point is a simple question:
    > Are your beliefs rational, or not?

    mel:
    Good point! You may have just cleaned
    some of the bugs off my mental wind-
    shield.

    It seems that by definition a belief is
    not a rational thing, (part'l def: A habit
    of placing trust in something or faith),
    it is less than knowledge.

    While it may be possible to state a
    belief in a logical structure, a belief
    is an inferior form of reasoning.

    The ability to launch beyond the state
    of language based understanding, into
    the paradoxical, the subtle or internal
    meaning is not constrained by the
    rational.

    As RMP pointed out the madman or
    the saint look the same from a certain
    point of view.

    ...Which made a connection in my head,
    accompanied by smoke and sparks as
    something shorted, which might be
    interesting to explore, pertinent to MoQ.

    From a linguistics class: The Hopi language
    has as its primary significant distinction not
    temporal tense (past, present, or future), but
    rather a split between manifest and manifesting.

    Manifest is the state of being here, now and
    empirical.

    Manifesting is the state of not being here now.
    It places those things not yet existing, those
    things elsewhere, and the imaginary as all of
    a kind.

    This, when you take some time to consider it
    gives a very different set of "reality filters" than
    an indo-european language. SOM would be
    a very foreign structure in a language so based.

    No wonder we looked so incomprehensible to
    some of the far-west/southwest peoples.

    To get to the point, a diistinction of manifest and
    manifesting is not terribly unlike either a zennish
    being/non-being or a SQ-DQ in flavor. But to any
    discussion re existence of a god, the god will
    always be manifesting, rather than manifest.

    So, to them god(s) are real, but they don't exist.
    Their reality is in non-being or manifesting.

    So it would make sense in Hopi, but not in English
    to say that there is a God, but he doesn't exist.

    So, the belief in god seems highly unrational...

    ...might be an interesting notion to play with.

    thanks--mel
    ------------------------------
    trivia:::::
    Purportedly, when the theory of realtivity was
    first translated into or related in Hopi, the reaction
    was something akin to "OK, that's obvious, so what?"

     

    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 : Fri Aug 20 2004 - 17:40:58 BST