[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
I'm real interested in your idea here,
Tim


[From the conversation 'between' Mark and Ron]
>[Mark]
> 
> As you say, MOQ is meant to be empirical.  What is and is not empirical
> depends on agreement within those ascribing to the philosophy.  The
> notion that dynamic quality enters into our senses in a pre-conceptual manner is
> a theory that needs more substance.  The empiricism that this subscribes
> appears to currently be based on thought experiments.  While this is
> appropriate, such statements need empirical proof.  I will be starting a
> new subject exploring this.  Of course this enters into the vast field of
> psychology since it deals with how the brain works.  The end result is
> agreement between, not agreement with.

[Tim]
This sound real interesting.  Just wanted to encourage you.

also, a while back you had said something towards this that I wanted to
reply to, but I didn't cause I was waiting on Ham and didn't want to
disturb that conversation either.

[Mark, to Ham, 11/17]
If Value is real, can that mean that Quality is real?  This may be
somewhat
of a repetitive question so you don't have to answer it.  What I call
Quality does not necessarily agree with what many on this forum propose.
 I
came up with mine before Pirsig published his.  I am trying to reify the
two
(and I do not subscribe to dmb's interpretation of what reify means).  I
am
trying to harmonize in a concrete way.  Quality is what separates two
things, it is a very real thing, whereas the appearance of the two
things is
created by it.  The objects are trivial compared to the Quality
dividing.
 Things do not contain Quality, they are an expression of its separation
powers (or force, or divine intervention, whatever you want).

[Tim]
OF course I like a lot of what you have to say about separation.   And I
want to encourage you here to.  But, I will say that I can't ascribe to
a simple definition of thingyness, and, as such, I suspect you may have
trivialized it.  Things separate things too; whether quality mediates. 
So 'separation' may be more complex too!



> [Mark]  One could easily interpret Quality as being a personal guide in this
> existence.  Such a thing is theistic and does not challenge MOQ, in my opinion.  One
> could also view Quality as some benign indifference impinging on us. 
> That,
> however, would separate us from Quality and make it objective.

[Tim]
quite nice.  people have to make decisions somehow.  Guide or no-guide?

Tim

-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                          or over the web