From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Mon Apr 12 2004 - 00:42:48 BST
PART 1b.
> Christians, like all those who adhere to rigid static social patterns,
I find this 'globalising' mode of argument vacuous. It's a bit like saying,
'people, like all those
who adhere to rigid static biological patterns' when the point at issue is
whether 'people'
describes biological or social entities (or some other combination).
Mark 11-4-04: The statement, 'People, like all those who adhere to rigid
static biological patterns' is not vacuous, it is accurate. All people adhere to
Biological patterns of value, and these patterns are, from an evolutionary
perspective, very static.
The statement, 'Christians, like all those who adhere to rigid static social
patterns,' is similarly not vacuous: Christianity IS a range of static social
patterns of value.
Similarly all you've achieved
with this point is to assert a prejudice, that a Christian is someone lacking
intellect. Forgive me
if I find that naive - at best.
Mark 11-4-04: Christianity also includes a range of Intellectual values. Your
problem is accommodating social and Intellectual values into a coherent
relationship. You do this by experiencing the need to make what you term, 'minor
changes' to the standard MoQ. But the MoQ doesn't need it, but you disagree, and
why do you disagree?
And here we go again, around the Mulberry bush...
> Christians, like all those who adhere to rigid static social patterns, must
> form a coherent relationship with DQ.
What counts as a 'coherent' relationship? Are you saying it needs to be
conceptualised?
Mark 11-4-04: A coherent patterned relationship is self supporting in the
MoQ. That is to say, it does not require a witness watching in order to convey
meaning. Such a relationship may cohere in a static repertoire of intellectual
patterns of value; a repertoire which is evolving in the event stream towards
DQ.
The witness Christians require in order to convey meaning to everything is
God.
In order for you to be able to exist in a self supporting relationship of
this nature, you, as Spinoza suggests, would have to be an attribute and
therefore included in the being of God.
If you move along this line of argument, you may find yourself developing a
description of God which becomes indistinguishable from DQ? No changes, 'minor'
or otherwise required.
> This may be done well, or poorly.
Yes..... and?
Mark 11-4-04: I'm glad you ask this question, because i, at least, find it
exceptionally fascinating. You see, what i'm suggesting it that 'Art' comes
before your description of the MoQ. You have developed what you regard as a
version of the MoQ which serves your patterning, and this activity may be done well
or poorly, but the art of your endeavour is prior to the endeavour itself -
Quality. In fact, the 'standard' MoQ tells us this! That is another reason why
your changes are harmful.
Mark
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 : Mon Apr 12 2004 - 00:44:38 BST