[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[David M]

Hi DMB

Really, the international school of philosophy the
authors belong to is highly sophisticated and anti-dualist
and supportive of ontoligical pluralism, i.e. emergent
levels, ring any bells? e.g. the MOQ, but glad to
have your opinion on something you know nothing
about. Try this link as an introduction:

http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/rbhaskar_rbi.html

Fancy a book, look up Dialectic by Roy Bhaskar.
You'e might like to think you're cutting edge, but
I don't see it from where I'm at. You just roll out
the same old assumptions and they are just plain
off target. You know, the same prejudices against
religion are the same ones that would make secular
academics resistant to the MOQ. Values key to
understanding inorganic patterns, -that just does not
fit into the secular universe I'm afraid. So, for me,
there is a beyond the culture wars that supersedes
both theism and secularism. We can agree perhaps if we
say that the MOQ is anti-theistic and anti-secular!
and surely it is not humanistic either! Do you have a
clue what I'm saying? You don't seem to.

regards
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?


> David M said to DMB
> Did you know reading books you disagree with is often more stimulating to
> thought than looking in the mirror and nodding your approval?
>
> dmb says:
> Umm, yes. Did you know that its illegal and immoral to beat your wife?
>
> The problem is that their view is disagreeable, but that it is bogus,
> intellectually invalid. As I already said, "the authors began their
> investigation into the existence of God as believers already". Maybe I
> should have given them points for a certain level of honesty in confessing
> this just a few pages into the introduction, but I still think its 
> entirely
> unacceptable for scholars to begin with the conclusion.
>
> I also complained about their assumptions, saying "their ontological 
> realism
> is pretty much the opposite of the MOQ's brand of humanism". See, the
> authors are explicitly telling us that they are operating on the 
> assumption
> that there is an objective ontological reality and that we can, as 
> subjects,
> know something about it. They are operating with subject/object 
> metaphysics.
> But its not that I wish to avoid anything that might disagree with me or 
> my
> understanding of the MOQ. I just don't think its possible for such a
> perspective to have any relevance to the issue of the MOQ's anti-theisim.
> Its like trying to settle an argument about Einstein's equation by telling
> me to read some Newton.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get today's hot entertainment gossip 
> http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip
>
> 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/
>