From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 08 2005 - 20:12:17 BST
Hi Ian,
> The eudaimonic paper ? Not recently, and I guess I didn't "get it" the
> first time - so it looks like a re-read is needed.
Hope you enjoy it. Coherent criticism invited :o)
>
> "Substantive" individual ? We're playing with words. No more
> "distinct" individual than distinct anything else, bar quality. And as
> the DMB / Scott line on Tat Tvam Asi debate shows - it can barely be
> said in words, until you've bought the spirit of it. Like Zen in fact.
Hang on, let's not get hung up on the words. Do you think that there is
something that might be legitimately described as an 'individual' (referring
to a human centre of response to DQ at the fourth level), in the way that
there is also, say a 'dog'. In other words, whilst we might describe a dog
as a particular set of inorganic and biological patterns, there is sense to
saying 'that dog bit me'. It's precisely my point that we can talk about
distinct individuals as coherent sets of particular patterns. Which I think
is what the MoQ denies. (For the record, I think that the MOQ could easily
be phrased so as not to make that point, but my usual interlocutors don't
want to go down that road. It was one of the ones I mentioned at the end of
my eudaimonic paper).
>
> Atheistic / Non-Theistic ? I feel it is explicit that MoQ does not
> "require" god as part of its explanation, there are no gaps waiting to
> be filled. It doesn't explicitly exclude it, but I feel that is just
> rhetorical, to get a fair hearing in US. No point waving the red-rag,
> breaking eggs, as I did. I sense most MoQ "believers" would support
> the atheistic line, a non-theistic line. Anyway - just a line in the
> sand - I'll re-read your paper (one of my blog readers actually
> pointed out it was worth a read too.)
The problem comes when you think you've got a handle on what the words
'theism' or 'atheism' refer to or mean. "I have no need of that hypothesis"
seems to assume God as one cause amongst other causes, or one object amongst
other objects. God is not a member of any class. Bit like DQ. But I'd be
happy to dropthe entire thing.
Let me put it differently. If you unpacked what you mean by 'atheism' you'd
find - I suspect - that there is no difference between what we don't believe
in.
> Clearly MoQ benefits from being tested against alternative views, just
> need that line in the sand.
I'm cool with that.
Sam
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 Aug 09 2005 - 00:52:56 BST