[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[John Carl]

Nice, Ron.

The problem is when people stop reasoning out the reasoning behind their
reasoning.

Heh-heh.  No wonder most people  tire of metaphysical discussion quickly.

The trick is to always question, always remain open and not go crazy - to
know when you have done "just enough".



The trick is th

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:48 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> See, if one can not provide reasons for their beliefs
> they can not make a value distinction on which ones are better.
>
> may as well be religous beliefs
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:23:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks
>
> Marsha,
> Not really, just a matter of preference and the ability to persuade
> others. Convincing arguements tend to be based on reasonable
> explanations. What are your reasons for a belief?
>
> But I don't think anyone can be convinced of anything unless
> they are first open to being convinced.Thus the art of rhetoric.
>
> I just think there is a distinction between practicing this art well
> and practicing it poorly.
>
> To reject reasons for beliefs, is in my opinion, practicing it poorly.
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:02:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks
>
>
> Ron,
>
> This somehow seems like the difference between static value (patterns) and
> value judgements (good! - bad! or reasonable - irrational!).  I see the
> same
> issue with Magnus.  Do you see value and value judgements as different,
> or the same?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 10:49 AM, X Acto wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > [Platt]
> > Reason (SOM) expanded human understanding of levels 1 and 2, but in so
> doing
> > left values in the dust and lost them there, going so far as to deny
> their
> > existence. The MOQ takes humanity to a new promontory of understanding
> where
> > one can see, if he will only open his eyes, a new reality of Quality
> (values)
> > whose structure makes reason (SOM) subordinate.
> >
> > Ron:
> > SOM is not reason. Reason, or giving reasons for our beliefs instead of
> > blind acceptance, is the intellectual level. SOM dominates reason
> > because the explanations it provides yield a convincing arguement.
> >
> > But your explanation above sounds more like it relies on blind
> acceptance.
> > Because it rejects reasons for justifications of belief. Per SOL/SIM
> > or whatever it's being called to avoid persecution by the moderator
> > which convieniantly rejects any reasons for it's beliefs.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>