[MD] MoQ as religion

[Heather Perella]

Hello,


> Ian,
> 
> I like your definition of religion as a "belief
> system"
> very much. Now I can explain my point more clearly.
> 
> 
> You said that science has it's limits. What is the
> nature of this limits? Are these limits built by the
> science itself? - No. These limits are the natural
> limits
> of the rational thought.

     I'm not sure what your saying here, but the way I
understand science, science does not recognize
'thought' existing, therefore, the limits of rational
thought belongs in the field of philosophy, not
science.  In science, it is just hormones and atoms,
etc... that are here.
 
> MoQ tries to go beyond this limits. Go RATIONALLY,
> you see?
> But it's just impossible! And that impossibility is
> reflected in the fuzzy ontological status of MoQ
> itself
> (try to reflect on the example in my previous
> letter:
> > > - What is MoQ?
> > > - Static intellectual pattern.
> > > - What this notion (that MoQ is a static
> intellectual pattern) is?
> > > - Static intellectual pattern, too.
> > > - And what is this notion?
> > > - The same...
> )

     Static quality is chaotic (maybe quantum
physics), inorganic (geology, etc...), organic
(biology, etc...), social (politics, etc...),
intellectual (philosophy, etc...).  Thus, static
quality includes science, society, and thought
systems.  Dynamic quality is your nothingness, yet, in
your nothingness I have a hard time seeing how you
knew or were conscious of your experience with all
that void going on.  Since you were obviously
conscious of the void, then you saw something
undefined (DQ) and even if you could not fully
identify yourself, something more solid and not void
was present, even vaguely, that presence was yourself
being conscious of the void.  Your consciousness is
more staticly defined, than undefineable at all.

> The resolution to go beyond the natural limits to
> rational
> thought is what puts MoQ and religion in one bed.
> And when we are beyond these limits
> the only criterion of the "the quality of
> explanation"
> is FAITH. You believe in Quality? - Good for you. -
> But I
> believe in the green aliens in my head that control
> all my
> feelings and thoughts. Is your explanation of
> Reality
> any better than mine? 
> 
> LFFYA,
> Ilya.

     Your green aliens are defining something you call
little green aliens.  You have made a static quality
definition or in other words, you have identified
something and gave it a name.  This static quality
named green aliens controls your feelings and
thoughts.  This control has to be very solid and
consistent in its' contact with feelings and thoughts
in order to have control over such entities.  Thus,
the static latching or in other words, the attachment
between the green aliens and your thoughts and
feelings is strong enough to have the green aliens
control your thoughts and feelings. 
     This is the way I have begun to settle into what
quality means. 

Thanks, 
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com