From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 19:21:47 GMT
Ron,
Ron said: This is where I see the difficulty Scott is having with
empiricism.
Scott:
You see wrong. Like DMB, you take what I say and then add humongous
assumptions to what I say and argue on the basis of those erroneous
assumptions. I then have to spend a ridiculous amount saying "that's not
what I said". Somehow, you have interpreted my objecting to Pirsig's
expansion of the word 'empiricism' to the belief that I think that changing
the usage of all words is a bad thing. In my first post about this subject I
explicitly denied that.
You have some notion of what I think about mystical events, but I'm not even
sure what it is. Do you think that I think that all mystical events are
equally valid or invalid? That a vision of the Virgin Mary should be treated
the same as Zen satori? I do not.
You seem to think that I am stuck in SOM prejudices. I think the MOQ is
stuck in SOM prejudices, for example, in calling itself "empirical". If we
are going to debate this you have got to resist your tendency to go off on
big rambles based on wrong assumptions about what I think. If you're not
sure what I think, then ask, and I will clarify as well as I can.
Meanwhile, I am curious about this sentence:
"The nothingness that we don't understand was proven by Quantum Physics"
While I think your use of the word "proven" is a gross overstatement, I
think there is some relation with mystical talk on nothingness and quantum
physics, but I'd like you to expand on how you see it.
- Scott
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 Feb 15 2005 - 19:42:26 GMT