From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Dec 02 2004 - 00:36:18 GMT
Scott Roberts wrote:
Unicorns are known not to exist empirically. Do you really want to do away
with this distinction?
DH comments:
Actually Unicorns Are known to exist empirically. They certainly don't
exist empirically objectively but i can describe to you(subjectively) a
white horse with a horn out it's nose quite comfortably.
<>
SM replied to Scott:
No, but that wasn’t what I was saying was it? I was making a statement
about rationalism and the lack of constraints it places on what does or
does not exist. God is not known to exist empirically but is considered
to be monistic reality itself by some rationalists, such as Spinoza. So
why accept a non-empirical God but not a non-empirical unicorn?
DH comments:
Hmm, I think you need to be careful here. God doesn't exist objectively,
yet the effects of a social authority of God do as does an intellectual
concept of God. Also, as you have pointed out in an earlier post; truth
is subject to the harmony it produces, so the MOQ views the intellectual
concept of 'what God says goes' as not an accurate a description of
reality as one which pertains to Quality.<>
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 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 00:39:04 GMT