[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[John Carl]

Sorry marsha, I wasn't talking about your panties, it was a snide aside
aimed at dmb.

Willam Jame's Varieties is more his baliwick, after all.

I've actually never had Jalapeno Ice Cream, but I have heard it's good.



On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> Greetings,
>
> My panties in a bunch?  I don't think so.  I just posted what I thought to
> be
> the MoQ's point-of-view on theism, and what I perceived to be a problem
> arguing theism as the same as religion.  I'm all in favor of a variety of
> religious experiences, but non attributed to any type of other supernatural
> being/s.
>
> Mixed with some cocoa beans, I bet hot, spicy Jalapeno peppers in
> ice cream would be wonderful.  I'd try it.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM, John Carl wrote:
>
> > I hear ya, Marsha.  Jalapeno Ice Cream isn't your taste but you won't
> knock
> > the spoon outta somebody else's mouth.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > I'm only slightly curious why a system which extolls "Varieties" of
> > Religious Experience would get its panties all in a twist in the first
> > place, but hey.  That's just me and my Jalapeno flavored world view.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> JC,
> >>
> >> I disagree with you, but I'm not trying to change your mind.  I think
> the
> >> concept
> >> chocked full of harmful vibes, but by all means go for it.  Let the show
> >> begin.
> >> I'll wander through the stadium getting rich selling moon pie.
> >>
> >> Love you,
> >>    Marsha
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:49 AM, John Carl wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And I think the use of the term "god" much more degrading because of
> the
> >>>> commonly acknowledged definitions, connotations and history.  I think
> >> RMP
> >>>> chose the most appropriate label.  Stripping the word "god" of all the
> >>>> garbage
> >>>> would be near impossible, imho.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I dunno Marsha.  It has been tried before.  There seems to me to be a
> >>> central problem in human history that when you throw out "God", you
> throw
> >>> out values.  That's the way it's been.  The Russian experiment
> (remember
> >> the
> >>> "godless commies?") didn't work out so well and historically, the use
> of
> >> the
> >>> term has served the evolution of society so that evidently those
> >> societies
> >>> that use the term do better than the societies that don't.  I feel
> rather
> >>> than tossing it out, the MoQ should analyze.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's not the same thing as true atheism.  Which is more along the
> >> lines
> >>>>> Krimel advocated with the world and all that is being the product of
> >>>> random
> >>>>> chance, with no positive force behind any of it.  No matter what you
> >> call
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's the definition of atheism I use:  Atheists are people who
> believe
> >>>> that god
> >>>> or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths
> >> and
> >>>> legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.  If
> >> Krimel
> >>>> has
> >>>> a more esoteric, sophisticated definition that's fine but it would
> seem
> >> to
> >>>> narrow
> >>>> the discussion to only those individuals who share his definition.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Ok Marsha.  Let's look at this carefully.  "man-made constructs" - what
> >>> isn't?  Even to use the term implies a supernatural entity, otherwise
> >> "man"
> >>> - made is meaningless.
> >>>
> >>> Unless you meant gender-wise and you prefer "woman-made constructs".
> >>>
> >>> It's like gav pointed out about "Freedom" is also a man-made construct,
> >> but
> >>> in the MoQ, even subjective patterns have meaning AS patterns of value.
> >>> Since people have gone to war repeatedly over such intellectual
> >> constructs,
> >>> I fail to see how defining them as "meaningless" is helpful in
> analyzing
> >>> them properly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I agree that one does not need faith to perceive Quality, whereas it
> >> does
> >>>>> take a sort of faith to perceive God.  Just one more way that Quality
> >> and
> >>>>> God are differing concepts.  I guess the purest way I can make the
> >>>>> distinction is that you can ask if God is any good, but you can't
> >> really
> >>>> ask
> >>>>> if Quality is any good.  God is measured by Quality, not the other
> way
> >>>>> around.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does that make sense?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Perfect sense.  So what is benefit of holding on to the concept of
> God?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Communication with 95% of US Population, for one.  Discourse with most
> of
> >>> written history, for another.  Those two alone hold enough benefit to
> >> tempt
> >>> me to go all, "duh!" on you.
> >>>
> >>> But I won't because I'm too respectful.
> >>>
> >>> Quality doesn't obviate God.  Quality tames "God".  The comparison with
> >> SOM
> >>> is exactly apt  - Quality doesn't obviate S/O.  Quality tames S/O.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> John the lion-tamer,
> >>> 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
>