From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 14:28:43 BST
Hi Ian,
> Individual ?
> I was nervous at using the word - "individual IN the world" was the
> best natural language phrase I could come up with. (So Tat Tvam Asi,
> does it for me Scott. DMB "blasphemous" one with "god", but no
> distinct "god", stuff works for me too.)
So - just to get clear - are you saying that the word 'individual' has a
substantive sense in the MoQ? If so, I welcome you to the ranks of the
heretics :o)
>
> Theism / Atheism / Antitheism ?
> This only becomes a battle "against" theism, when theists bring their
> god into their explanations and applications of it, the MoQ. Until
> then it's just not-theistic, just not a "relevant" issue. (See the
> line in the sand below.)
If it's not relevant, why include it? This isn't a hill I want to die on,
though, simply because RMP says that the MoQ is atheistic. I think he's
drawing on a superficial understanding of the western tradition - in common
with the majority understanding in our culture - but I'm not going to bang
my head against the wall about it.
> The Heretics ?
> Sam, again I hope I chose my words carefully, to be clear without
> causing offence. I wouldn't want the heretics to leave, but I would
> want them to recognise a line drawn in the sand in the debating arena
> (toe the line says DMB) - debates about details of the MoQ and its
> progress vs meta-debates about the relationship of MoQ to alternative
> views.
Well, where would you put my 'eudaimonic' thesis - which stands
independently of Christian faith (and xn faith is quite obviously outside
the purview of the MOQ)? In other words, if a person sees conceptual
problems in the 'moq as received', and suggests a solution which (to their
mind) solves the problem - does this mean that they're a heretic or not? Are
we allowed to 'improve' the MoQ? (gasps of horror in the serried ranks) I
think that's what we're here for - I think that's how RMP envisions our role
as well.
To put that differently, I'm quite happy to shelve Christianity most of the
time, but the philosophical criticisms of the MoQ I see as legitimate
subjects for debate. That's why I raised the 'how do intellectual patterns
respond to Quality' thread - on which, it would seem, I have made my point.
As with several points on MF (eg the 'machine language interface') where I
have argued for elements of my eudaimonic proposal in detail, and my
position seems, by and large, to have been accepted by the
_sensus_fidelium_.
> So, give MoQ a chance was probably all I was really saying (together
> with a definition of what I meant by MoQ when I said it.)
>
> I'll wait for any more responses, but I'd like to achieve a terse
> "definition" of the "truths", on the MoQ side of that line in the
> sand.
I don't know if - or how recently - you looked at my eudaimonic paper, but
the first part of it was precisely an attempt to capture the 'truth's of the
MoQ side of that line in the sand - in order to make my own perspective
clearer.
Cheers
Sam
"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned
man who is proud of his large cell."
Simone Weil
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 : Sun Aug 07 2005 - 21:51:53 BST