Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 02:19:10 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD dot-communism"

    Thanks for your honesty David, about muddling.

    I was trying to keep this thread focussed on some binary
    classification choices - which side of a line. Not because I want to
    exclude anything, just because I believe if we don't discover some
    structure about "where we each stand" relative to that line, the last
    three years of debate I've witnessed is merely going to recycle
    itself. (We can re-post all our mails with 9/11 and Iraq searched an
    replaced with 24/12 and Korea or whichever cock-up or conspiracy
    happens next.)

    I'm trying to find some static latches to build on, as distinct from
    places with more counter-theories than you can shake a stick at.

    As far as "God" is concerned - was just seeking agreement (or not) to
    the fact that MoQ is God-free (requires no anthropomorphic,
    purposeful, transecendent intelligent consciousness) as propounded.
    How hard a question can that be ?

    (As we've debated a thousand times before I have no problem with
    god-like metaphors for the awesome wonder of the workings nature, or
    variations on that theme. Just didn't want that debate in this
    thread.)

    <Rant>
    Keeping "bad god talk" away from MoQ is a start.
    (Sam, you may have to maintain that patience a bit longer, ie if I
    ever get the mental space necessary to re-open that debate, I may
    decide there are more important issues. The "Bush says Intelligent
    Designerism is OK" meme is sweeping western Australia like a bush-fire
    as I type - terrifying - loose talk costs future generations -
    absolutely criminal; genocidal. That's the kind of biological pattern
    that needs lining up aganist a wall and shooting, Platt.)
    </Rant>

    Ian

    On 8/11/05, David M <davidint@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    > Hi Ian
    >
    > I would like to muddle this a bit, a matter of taste to some extent.
    > For me talking about DQ cannot avoid using much of the same
    > language/ideas that have been used to talk about god. And a feeling
    > of awe towards DQ seems perfectly justified. But there is a lot of
    > very bad god talk that I would like to see kept well away from discussions
    > of DQ. How does that feel?
    >
    > David M
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:58 AM
    > Subject: Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths
    >
    >
    > > So thanks Scott, you make my point.
    > >
    > > People who wave DQ about are on the MoQ side of that line in the sand.
    > > People who wave God about are on the other.
    > > Dead simple.
    > >
    > > A decision on which is better or worse (DQ or God) is a matter of
    > > choosing which side of that line.
    > >
    > > Ian
    > >
    > > On 8/9/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@cox.net> wrote:
    > >> Ian,
    > >>
    > >> Ian said:
    > >> 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
    > >>
    > >> Scott:
    > >> I fail to see how the MOQ has no gaps waiting to be filled. Doesn't it
    > >> just
    > >> wave "DQ" at the question of how the universe gets from one level to
    > >> another? I don't see this as any better (or worse) an explanation than
    > >> saying "God did 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
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 Aug 11 2005 - 04:16:26 BST