Re: MD On Heyman's Arrogance

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 01:25:36 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Static and dynamic aspects of mysticism and religious experience"

    Hi Chin,

    Thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned response, and your genuine
    attempt to understand what I am saying.

    Let me hasten to add however that I have no idea whether or not my
    current way of thinking is any more "right" than many of the
    alternate views expressed here in the forum, including your own
    mystical/philosophical inclinations. My way, for me, for now, seems
    to provide me with satisfactory explanations of the world around me.
    But that could change, and probably will.
     
    As far as I'm concerned, no one can be "out of line" in their
    thinking except, perhaps, when their thinking leads to action that
    results in the misery of others. So, please, I welcome your
    interaction here, and will read your posts with the attention and
    respect they deserve. I'm sure every contributer to this list feels
    the same way.

    Best,
    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'

    On 14 Nov 2004 at 16:05, PhaedrusWolf@aol.com wrote:

    In a message dated 11/14/04 11:52:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
    markheyman@infoproconsulting.com writes:
        My position is that a religious view is not a scientific view, and
        much confusion arises when one seeks for religious belief the
        imprimatur of science.
        
        Furthermore, my position is that any belief, religious or otherwise,
        that does not have an empirical basis will not be supported by the
        Metaphysics of Quality.

    Hi msh,

    I understand where you are coming from here, as what you are stating
    is object over subject.

    The subjective view is a distortion of the objective view, mind is
    only an accumulation of knowledge gained from experience.

    It does seem this is the path Pirsig took, so I imagine MOQ would
    depend on it, and since I am on a MOQ forum, I would be the one out
    of line in my thinking.

    I'll continue to read to see if I can make sense of the empirical
    thinking, and will admit to being more of a mystic in my philosophy,
    and even in my reality, as I do feel I still have a strong
    relationship with the spirits of my forefathers. This static pattern
    will possibly always make up a major philosophical difference in the
    way I view the world.

    We'll just see what comes about.

    Chin

    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 Nov 15 2004 - 03:19:09 GMT