From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sun Apr 11 2004 - 22:46:03 BST
PART 1.
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
following:
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.
> 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 - 01:35:49 BST