[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[skutvik at online.no]

Dave T.

4 March :

Bo before
> > Wouldn't it be an idea to read the f..ing  "manual"? [Bible?] 

Except that I said "LILA" and my frustration was directed towards John 
who asks these half-witted questions which he would have known the 
answer to had he bothered to read Pirsig instead of Royce, but this 
forum once a test-ground for the MOQ has become scrap-yard for all 
and sundry ideas.

Dave.
> This whole exercise reminds me of those Gospel stories. Except with
> them there is at least the excuse that the writing was turned out well
> after the fact by many different people. It is becoming more clear to
> me why some philosophers have said, other than from a historical sense,
> the whole philosophy project is over. Even those who feel that this is
> premature are skeptical of the value of metaphysics as anything other
> than a placeholder for those ideas that are untestable and will forever
> remain that way. 

Had you understood the MOQ you would have not said this, but alas. 

> Metaphysically the following statements are identical:
 
> The source of all reality is God.
> The source of all reality is Quality.
> The source of all reality is Zxpygw.

1) God or gods as the source is "social metaphysics" i.e. mythologies 
and/or religions.

2) There not being any source is "intellectual metaphysics" i.e. SOM

3) Reality being Quality is MOQ.

But as you may have noticed I am not so interested in this axiom as 
the Dynamic/Static split of Quality which makes for a paradox-free 
existence. But if you don't have a need for a rock solid explanation of 
existence why bother?   

> Dogma are dogma. Whether metaphysical or religious does it really make
> any difference? But it is somewhat interesting to see a "religion" in
> the making in at close to real time. The Gospel of Bo is being
> promoted by the "if you can't pound on the facts, pound on the pulpit"

I know my big sin is to take the MOQ seriously and not treat is as just 
another "theory" in an unending string from Cave Man onwards. THAT 
is the one embarrassing offense in the Church of Reason. 

> method that all "good" Pentecostal preachers adore. The Gospel of DMB
> uses that reasoned, intellectual approach favored by the
> Presbyterians. The Gospel of DLT is some form a agnosticism that even
> he can't understand. The nice thing about the process is that you can
> make it up as you go along. Nobody has yet figure out the big MoQ
> religious question yet: "How do you get others to send you money?"

Me a Pentecost and DMB a Presbyterian and you the agnostic. Funny. 
What about the Jehovah Witness and/or Mormons?  

> Just hope being here doesn't mean I signed up for the poisoned
> Kool-Aid.
 
No risk.


Bodvar