[MD] MoQ as religion

[ian glendinning]

David, you said something here, and in a related thread, about "trust".

You seem to be making an SQ / DQ case as to why MoQ doesn't rely on
trust in a sense that religion relies on "faith".

I've tended to say - the MoQ (and science) do rely on trust at their
ineffable core, but I've always qualified trust with phrases like "on
account" "suspending disbelief" etc.

You said you think of it as the hypothesis / empirical disproof thing.
The hypothesis is "believed" pending testing opportunities. That's
good, that's the way I see it too. But you seem to be saying that the
ineffable core (DQ in the case of MoQ) is quite different.

(I think there are some "word games" going on in the "quality is not a
concept" line of argument, as if that exempts it from certain
reasoning, but I accept the general idea.)

In a sense  - the latest whacky fundamental theory in physics (say,
superstrings, quantum information, whatever) isn't much different,
even if testable hypotheses are built on top of them. The core
remains, 100% metaphorical, on trust, barely even inferred from any
testable hypotheses, and not themselves directly provable one way or
another. In the case of science of course that core shrinks as new
more fundamental metaphors are invented and their edges tested ... but
the ineffable core always exists.

Ian


On 4/7/06, David Harding <davidharding at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hi SA, Kevin and others.
>
> SA said:  Are you pointing towards what I mentioned
> >>as scientists not recognizing thought or to
> >>scientists we are hormones and such?  Psychologists
> >>recognize thought, but where is a thought?  Is it
> >>material, thus, all in the brain tissue?  And in
> >>what way will they approach thought?  Like a
> >>philosopher?  Not yet.  This difference is what I
> >>was referring to when I said a scientist doesn't
> >>recognize thought.  I guess I meant in the way a
> >>philosopher does.  In the case of changing SOM to
> >>MOQ one may say Pirsig was as all philosophers were
> >>and are - the original psychologists.  As to where
> >>is thought and can a scientist point to it?  Well,
> >>can anybody point to something that merges with DQ?
>
>
> David said:  Yes,
>
>
> SA:
> >      Where is DQ?  That is actually my question.  What
> > I meant by merge was that thought comes close to DQ,
> > but can I actually point to where DQ is without having
> > to make DQ - static quality and then I can point at
> > what was (past tense) DQ.
>
> David:
>
> I think it depends on how you do your finger pointing.  If you point literally, making a conscious effort, methodically noting all the small details etc, then no, all you'll point at is static
> quality.  But if you point with an allusion, drifting on breeze of the moment, then yes, you can point at Dynamic Quality.
>
> David said:  Point to the wall beside you.  There's
> >
> > something
> >
> >>that 'merges' with DQ.  In my view, walls 'merge'
> >>with DQ the same way thoughts do.  But to me 'merge'
> >>is a slippery word as it can be confused with
> >>simple addition and dynamic quality cannot be added
> >>to anything. It's already there to begin with.
>
> SA said:      As to what you said Kevin, I now
> > notice not
> >
> >>just thought, but trust, as you mentioned, is a
> >>concept wrapped with belief.  Why is the static
> >>(thought for example) and dynamic wrapped with
> >>belief?   Anything that emerges from dynamic
> >>quality, even if static for somebody else, but
> >>dynamic to me (meaning I have not been able to
> >>define this anything) is, if any pursuit of wisdom
> >>or static quality
> >>is to occur, something to belief may happen.  Even
> >>if trust comes into play that there will always be
> >>dynamic quality still, thus, something undefined in
> >>this pursuit of ours.
> >>
>
>
> David said:  There is no trust necessary.
>
> >      Something was undefined and now is defined.
>
> Something undefined is different to Dynamic Quality.  Something undefined is a concept. Dynamic Quality is not.
>
>   What
> > will I define something that I 'trust' is here, yet,
> > not defined yet?  DQ is a pool of possibilities, but
> > what will my fishing pole hook and catch?  What will I
> > reel in and be able to identify?  I don't know.
>
> I know, and it's called static quality.
>
>  What
> > could I put in place of trust?
>
> Quality.
>
> Trust for me is
> > setting value.  It is putting value into action.
> > Defining value with a verb emphasis.  Yes... No... ?
>
> No...
>
> Trust for me is at best, a dim apprehension of Quality, and not a good word at all for describing the perspective of the MOQ.  'Trust' is what happens when we get stuck in our patterns and think about
> things too much and worry and fear about what reality is really like, and so we think we need to 'trust' something [because we don't really know] to get us through.  In actuality however,
> reality/quality has always been, and is right now, right here, infront of us. So we do know, you've just got to *see* it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David.
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>