[MD] Theism/epistemology

[MarshaV]

At 12:24 PM 2/7/2009, you wrote:
> > Marsha
> > A concept with no value will soon cease to exist.
>MP: Your POV is not the only source of value, and as you have expounded on
>it, completely entrenched in an SOM perspective; if I can't prove it 
>to you, you
>insist it doesn't exist.
>
>Quality doesn't exist, but you accept it nonetheless.

Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that 
there is a knower and a known.  Quality is experienced.



>You speak of mystical experience, but then tell me "experience is experience"
>as if there is no variation, as if they are all the same glass of water.

I said experience is experience, the description of the experience is 
not the experience.  I never said there was no variation.



>As an MoQ'er I should think would understand this not to be the case better
>than anyone.

see above.



> > How are you going to make me think differently?
>MP: I have no intention of making you do anything. If you want to think
>differently, *you* are the one to whom you should be asking this 
>question, not
>me.
>
>And *you* will only ever do so by asking yourself "why" instead of "how."
>
>Belief is about experience not knowledge. It is about experience, 
>not proof. I
>describe my experience about belief the best I can in an epistemological
>framework, but unless you are prepared to attempt the experience, it is a
>pointless exercise; knowledge is not experience.

Who is believing and what is being believed?  A self(subject) and an object?



>Again, I'd think an MoQ'er would innately accept this.

Accept a self(subject) and an object?   I reject this.





>If what I have said so far has not made sense to you, then either I 
>am incapable
>of describing what I understand to you, or you can't and/or are unwilling to
>understand what I describe. Either way your quest for knowledge does not
>appear to be one helped by my experience on this topic. Either you 
>persist for
>the purpose of proving me wrong, or for the sake of proving yourself right.
>Either way, my part in your power play is involuntary as I am not 
>here to try to
>*prove* anything, and I haven't any intention in being coerced into 
>doing so for
>your purposes.
>
>If I had the sense you actually were interested in understanding what I am
>attempting to convey, the situation would be entirely different.

I understand you want g*d and theism worked into the MOQ.  I reject 
this.  I'm not the only one who rejects it.


Marsha







_____________

QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!