From: Simon Magson (twix_570@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 22:23:10 BST
A world in which nothing is better than anything else is obviously not the
world we live in. There is no need to hope that this is the case. There is
no need to pray for confirmation that this is so. There is no need to trust
somebody else's belief that this is true. You do not have to wait until you
die to find out if this is right. You cannot go a single day without seeing
that something is better than something else. Value is experienced every day
of everyone's life. Value is empirical.
It is rational not to exclude something so obviously real from an
understanding of and approach to reality. It is irrational to exclude
something obviously real from an understanding of and approach to reality.
Getting thirsty when you don't drink is obviously real in the world we live
in. You do not have to hope that this is the case. You do not have to pray
for confirmation that this is so. There is no need to trust somebody else's
belief that this is true. You do not have to wait until you die to find out
if this is right. Thirst is empirical.
It is rational to include thirst in one's understanding of reality and
behave in accordance with this understanding and take drinks. It is
irrational to exclude thirst from an understanding of reality and stop
drinking despite knowing that you will get more and more thirsty the longer
you leave it.
SM
>From: Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD On Faith
>Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hi,
>I agree that there is a distinction between the two but I don't think you
>have sufficiently explained why there is a distinction. You make it sound
>that Pirsig has this crystal clear argument but with all the dissenters of
>the MoQ and the various interpretations of the MOQ that is questionable.
> There are many "rational" people who think the MOQ is "irrational" and
>nothing you have said seems like it would convince them. I wanted you to
>explain your argument to a skeptic-----slapping a title "rational
>empiricism" I would doubt would convince them.
>Can you explain why it is rational empiricism, please.
>
>Erin
>
>
>I'd say it's not, because, as I've mentioned in another thread,
>Pirsig presents a very convincing argument for the reality of
>Quality/Value. In ZMM he shows the absurdity of a world without
>value. So we're dealing with rational empiricism, not faith.
>
>
>Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:Hi all,
>
>Back from a long weekend. Geeze, I figgered you guys would have all
>this worked out by now! But I see le' Avalanche Buchanan has been
>thundering seaward, so ya'll have your hands full.
>
>'What if he [Kerry] said that "values that he practices as an MOQer
>will guide me as president". Is that faith, why or why not? '
>
>I'd say it's not, because, as I've mentioned in another thread,
>Pirsig presents a very convincing argument for the reality of
>Quality/Value. In ZMM he shows the absurdity of a world without
>value. So we're dealing with rational empiricism, not faith. In
>fact, Pirsig makes it clear that there is no room for faith in the
>MOQ. So if anyone said "I have faith in the principles of the MOQ,"
>I'd have to say that they don't even understand the principles of the
>MOQ.
>
>This is why I've tried to pin down the difference between Quality and
>God. It's because of Pirsig's RAA argument that I've asked for a
>similar bit of reasoning in support of the existence of a
>personalized ground of being, one that would care about the
>individuals killed on 9/11, or anyone else.
>
>David Morey has said there IS a difference but was not specific,
>saying that "using the god-concept may allow us to also bring in
>other ideas that have been used in association with the god-concept
>but not yet with quality." I would like to discuss those other
>ideas.
>
>Scott Roberts, I believe, sees both Quality and God as ways of
>referring to aspects of a "disembodied consciousness" he sees as the
>ground of being. Here he casts his vote for consciousness as the
>ultimate reality because in doing so the problem of consciousness
>arising from matter, he believes, disappears. On the other hand, I
>choose to let the problem be a problem, for now, and go with the
>rational empiricism of the MOQ, believing that a large amount of
>empirical evidence suggests the possibility that consciousness may
>very well be a manifestation of matter.
>
>Sam Norton, to his credit, was quite precise about the difference
>between God and Quality: God cares (or values) individual human
>beings while the MOQ does not. I would disagree that the MOQ, a
>metaphysics of MORALITY after all, places no value on individuals;
>rather it insists that an individual's personal value should not be
>allowed to destroy the value of things higher in the moral hierarchy,
>specifically societies and ideas, that result in higher value for
>all.
>
>But even if it's true that Quality does not value individuals, and
>God does, a belief in this idea of a personal, caring "ground of
>being", is faith-based while my belief in Quality is not, or so I
>have argued.
>
>However, I'm not convinced, as DMB seems to be, that religious belief
>is for everyone devoid of value, that is, that people who value it
>are dupes of the God-Squad. Sam suggested to me, off-list, that
>current theological trends don't try to resolve the Problem of Evil
>so much as teach people to live with the doubt it engenders. I think
>the same can be said for living with the possibility that the "ground
>of being" may indeed not care for us as individuals. To me, the
>important fact is that we can and do care for one another, though,
>sometimes, this too is hard to believe.
>
>Best to all,
>Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
>--
>InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
>Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
>Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
>
>"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
>everything." -- Henri Poincare'
>
>
>
>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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
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 : Mon Oct 25 2004 - 22:28:23 BST