From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Mon Apr 12 2004 - 00:43:52 BST
PART 1a.
Hi Mark,
> There is no Eudaemonic level in the MoQ, as you know well.
Which is why I have always tried to make clear the difference between my
conception and the
'standard' MoQ. I am explicitly proposing a change - a variant type of MoQ,
and the change is, I
would argue, comparatively minor. (It keeps what I see as the major building
blocks of the MoQ
completely intact). I see that as a legitimate endeavour, especially within
this forum. Do you
consider it illegitimate? If so, are we only allowed exegesis of the sacred
text or are we permitted
to explore variations to Scripture?
Mark 11-4-04: Hello Sam, you suggest your variant MoQ makes minor changes to
the standard MoQ. However, it would appear your changes allow for the follo
wing:
1. Heaven.
2. Resurrection to immortal life in Heaven.
3. Virgin birth.
4. Miracles.
I do not find these changes minor.
> The MoQ does not need it.
I disagree.
Mark 11-4-04: So would Christianity. This explains why you disagree.
> In MoQ terms, your development is an attempt to encapsulate the
intellectual
> level in Social dress, and is therefore a continuation of a historical
> struggle between the social function of the church and intellectual
freedom. In this
> regard your tinkering is low Quality Intellectual value.
For various reasons which I've gone into _ad nauseam_ I reject 'intellectual'
as a coherent
description of the fourth level.
Mark 11-4-04: Many people who are not Christians and who have spent a great
deal of time studying philosophy and the MoQ do not reject an intellectual
level of the MoQ. That these people do not feel it quite necessary to 'go into it
ad nauseam' should not delude you into believing you are being persuasive.
If anything I'm trying to describe the necessity to have a social
level which allows the fourth level to flourish. Whether that represents 'low
Quality Intellectual
value' is partly a matter of opinion, partly a matter of begging the question
at issue. Any chance
you could offer a more substantive objection? Simply to describe what I'm
doing as social level vs
intellectual level is a meaningless rhetorical gesture unless you can justify
the claim.
Mark 11-4-04: I know from our previous (brief) discussions that your
understanding of what the good life is, is based on religious belief. The good life,
in your understanding, must be broadly compatible with Christian beliefs. My
understanding of the good life is not based upon Christian beliefs, but on an
enquiry into Quality. That enquiry involves the free range of intellectual
activity, and affirms intellectual activity to be derived from Quality.
However, you begin with a conformity and then shape what intellect would have
to be in order to affirm that conformity.
The above i feel to be a reasoned argument and not rhetorical gesturing, and
any question begging begins and ends with your beliefs Sam.
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 - 01:02:29 BST