[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[X Acto]

> Ron wrote;
> The whole point with using the name quality
> is because of it's descriptive power in relation to the function we describe..
> A vanilla term to be sure. Calling experience quality is not enough
> but some accurate term must be used in relation to the total
> concept,

MP: Why? Tao's "the Way" is so vanilla as to have almost no meaning. "Quality" 
in that sense is more confusing than anything else. When you all get down to 
arguing a rock is a rock because of atoms reacting to Quality its starts to sound 
like Arlo's Leprechauns.

Ron:
Yes, it does, I have argued in the past that this is still not understanding what is meant
and falls to a type of essentialism. But I'm not so sure this is Arlo's arguement.

MP:
Its not that I don't understand Quality in the MoQ. I get it well enough I think. 
And I'm not questioning it. Literally, this entire argument is based on my 
reaction to Arlo's being so arrogant in his criticism of theism that he is 
undermining MoQ. 

He criticized theism for relying on faith rather than proof. All I'm saying is "Well... 
then "prove" MoQ."

Ron:
Have you not understood my several examples of this proof?

> Ron wrote;
>  To me the term God takes one further away from what is being
> expressed as nothing in particular but experience in the now.

MP: In the common understanding of "God" as espoused my most mainstream 
J/C/M faiths, I'd agree.

Ron:
Then you understand that any term used is not going to be properly understood
whether it called the way, Quality or any other word. Pirsig chose quality
because it relates to his theories of evolutionary process, that all systems
tend towards certain behaviours, ones of consistancy and continuity.


----


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/