From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 - 05:12:39 BST
Hello Erin...
LOL Sorry, not trying to be confusing, but you
may have placed your finger on half the cause:
"I'm getting dizzy trying to figure out what
the heck your argument is."
I am not making an argument, but you are looking
for that approach in your reading.
The other half is less apparent. I bounced between
the experiential description of SQ/DQ in one, certainly
not beyond understanding, just something maybe
you've not seen written quite in that manner, and I
moved to the categorical of your rational/irrational
to break down a seemingly unhelpful distinction...
As to "belief in Moq," well I have none. It just so
happens that Pirsig's formulation, descriptively,
squares with what I have experienced on another
"approach," another vector of "looking for clarity."
As to faith, not sure I have anything by that
description anymore, maybe I am wrong, but
it doesn't feel that way.
Earlier I said: "I am not trying to convince, just
explain...," and that is still the case.
If I had posession of some TRUTH is could try
and convince, instead I have only observations
experienced from a point of view, and all I can
do is to try and explain.
That explanation is itself only SQ, but if "we all"
can point to DQ more effectively, it will "make for
better reception" as it were.
Maybe I missed the point where the voices in my
head mentioned Rational Empiricism, but then I often
confuse that with origami.
Question is, what are you looking for: an argument,
understanding, explanation, or something else?
thanks--mel
----- Original Message -----
From: Erin
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
ml <mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Hello Erin,
---- Original Message -----
From: Erin
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
Hi,
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.
mel:
It seems that labeling MoQ as either rational or irrational is
rather a SOM-ish position. Fine for a philosophy class but
counter productive for wrapping crenelations of squishy
brain matter around Quality.
Hi,
I am not trying to give you a hard time mel. I am just truly confused at how you distinguish these things. I'm getting dizzy trying to figure out what the heck your argument is.....remind me why you justify your belief in MOQ is not faith with the claim that it falls as RATIONAL empiricism and then with this new statement shun rational label as SOM and seemingly start to describe a realm of beyond understanding which was how you described faith.
Erin
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 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 05:22:29 BST