Re: MD Empiricism

From: MarshaV (marshalz@i-2000.com)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 16:01:04 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ"

    Greetings Chin, and all, 

    Chin, I'm sorry I ever responded to your statement about Christianity.  It must be difficult for me to let go of old belief systems.  They cling even to a negative power of minus one.  When it comes to religion I must sound like a reformed smoker.  (Why pollute and harm yourself????)  Others on this list have made eloquent arguments based on MOQ against theism and religious dogma.  I admire their clarity of thought. 

    Anybody know of an e.list that explores Buddhist philosophy?  On a thread with the subject Empiricism, it's outrageous to state, but my intuition points to Buddhism as the path with higher quality.  I'd like at least to explore it.  I may need some assistance, though, old habit die hard. 

    I think I understand why the author is in seclusion. 

    Sorry for the venom. 

    MarshaV







    At 09:53 PM 11/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
    In a message dated 11/21/04 5:49:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, marshalz@i-2000.com writes:
    I do not see a separation between the church and Christianity, even if
    there is a variety of practices.  You tell me, what makes a person a
    Christian?  Who teaches Christian beliefs?   How long would Christianity,
    as a system of belief, survive without the church?   What are the core
    Christian beliefs?  What are the common Christian beliefs?  (I would ask
    the same of Judaism and Islam.)  It appears to me that Christianity is its
    people, and Christians have been taught what to believe by the Church.

    Hi MarshaV,
     
    First, my central point might be 'Everyone in all of culture, religious, scientific, political have been taught what to believe. It is only in philosophy that we search our own minds.'
     
    I cannot disagree with you, and I take everything anyone offers as respectful unless it gets into petty bickering. I also can't say what the central beliefs of Christians are as I have not been exposed to all churches. I feel (as I can't know for certainty, only hear say) that there are extreme differences in the churches and their beliefs. I also couldn't say these things about any other religions. All I can assume is they all have their bad and good. So the original statement -- stand alone -- "Christianity is not bad", would be inadequate, as I can't know this. The thought that it does get one in touch with God would lead me to the assumption that it serves a purpose.
     
    I would say the same of science. It serves a purpose. As well as, as much as I hate to admit it, politics serve a purpose as well.
     
    As I stated, I am not here to defend Christianity or religion, but like scientific discoveries, and political views, it makes up the static patterns that make up societies and cultures. For me to deny these a relevant would mean that I would have to argue this statement, which I am also not capable of doing. If I cannot deny them, then I must accept them as close to reality as anything I might come up with.
     
    I can disagree with what I have seen of so called Christians that go against what I thought Christianity was all about, but I don't see how this would lead me to Dynamic Quality as this would be placing my focus on a negative cause. The same would hold true if I focused on proving the flaws of the education system.
     
    I am not well read in philosophy, so I also couldn't place my focuses on proving the school of philosophy is wrong in order to find the Quality or Value I am searching for.
     
    Just for a bit of background, I have been involved in a search for Quality and Value, but it was in the world of finance, and in particular, Wall Street finance. Each of the separate schools of thought in finance had their value. What seemed to me to be the case in my studies is each of them were out to prove what they saw as their immortal truths, blinded by these immortal truths to the point they couldn't see the forest for the trees. The arguments I found between the academics and nonacademics alike were the same. They believed what they believed, and were gullible to what they had been taught by others, the same as Christians are gullible to what they were taught by others, as scientists, as politicians.
     
    The idea as I see it behind MOQ is not to accept the immortal truths of others, but discover for yourself the Quality which you seek. As I developed my own personal philosophy of investing, I hope to develop my own personal philosophy in the affairs of man, and/or the City-state. What I found in finance is the same as what I expect to find here. It is not what is laid before you that causes disagreement, it is the interpretation of what is laid before you.
     
    In my statement that Christianity is not bad, I felt that the concept of Christianity is not bad, as I see this concept in a spiritual sense. I have my beliefs as to where this all went wrong, but to claim that I know where it went wrong, or even that it is wrong, would mean that I hold an immortal truth that no one else does. I am just not ready to make that statement.
     
    It took five years to develop an investing plan. I suspect it will take much more than that to develop a life plan. In my offerings on the investment forums, I always offer my thoughts as just that; thoughts. When I offer anything here, it will be the same, but at least for the time being, it will be uneducated thoughts.
     
    When you offer your thoughts, as you have, I will receive them with appreciation, as I know that you are as capable, if not more capable of discovering this Quality we seek. I hope that you and all here will be around on this forum long enough for us to develop a Master Mind of thought that goes along with a number of people's thoughts being in harmonious contemplation.
     
    Eventually we will get there, and I will accept every argument you offer as respectful. As long as you still argue, then I feel I still have your respect enough to take the time to do so.
     
    Thanks,
     
    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 22 2004 - 17:39:20 GMT