[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> Word weasel alert.
>
> [Arlo]
> They are your words. You said, "it takes faith to affirm it as Quality". I ask,
> does it take faith to affirm it as Light? (Four times now, think you can
> answer that question?)
>
MP: No, I can't. Like I said: not until you tell me what you mean by "Light" as it 
compares to "light." You do this with Quality and quality, and I have explained 
the difference and how Q requires faith unless you can prove it, but until you 
describe an MOL, no, I can't answer your question.

Let me put it another way. The dog at the window example is a red herring; it 
makes the case you are trying to make easily, is hard to argue against and lets 
you off the hook through a distractive aspects of what is apparently a solid 
case. But it is only so if one does not examine Pirsig's Quality any further than 
that. 

But Pirsig's Quality covers the dog AND a rock. A rock is an "inorganic static 
patter of quality" (and I will let Marsha find the source of the quote, I can't be 
bothered) To affirm that a rock exists for the same reason and the in the same 
way that a dog goes into the warm light either has to be proven rationally, or it is 
is affirmed absent proof. By definition, the latter is "through faith."

Without that rational proof, all you have left is faith.

> [Michael]
> Mine is merely "affirmation absent proof." (and I have said as much in
> EVERY post I've made in this thread.)
>
> [Arlo]
> You can say the same nonsensical thing over and over. It doesn't mean
> anything.
>
> [Michael]
> I'm using it as "have faith of", you are using it as "have faith in."
>
> [Arlo]
> You keep saying this too. As if it means something to you. Whatever. But
> its not accurate.


MP: Nonsensical ? Not accurate ?  Or just "not mine"?

www.dictionary.com

faith
-noun
1.         confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.         belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would 
be substantiated by fact.

I've been using 2, you seem to be using 1. I have been clear from the outset 
that my "thesis" and subsequent defense is using 2. Where's the problem with 
that if its not vested in your apparent need to force me to use 1 ? 


> [Michael]
> You have faith "of" the existence of Quality. Neither of us can prove the
> existence "of" that which we have faith any more than Leprechaunists can prove
> the existence of Leprechauns.
>
> [Arlo]
> Incorrect. My dog laid down again today in a beam of sunlight. Proof of
> Quality right there.

MP: Nope. Again you presume quality and Quality are identical. If they were, 
there'd be no point in an MoQ. The only thing you have rational "proof" of is that 
the dog laid down in the sunlight to apparently be warm. That *you* assign it to 
Quality as defined in the MoQ rather than anything else is because *you* have 
vested Quality with meaning that is greater than mere quality. If you can prove 
that quality has these things that make it Quality rationally and through reason, 
its not through faith that you come to that belief. If you can't, then its through 
faith. Definition 2 in both cases.

But Faith "IN" Quality? Definition 1? I totally agree with you from start to finish.

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."