At 09:32 AM 1/27/2008, you wrote:
> >[Platt]
> > > >As an aside I can't help but think that if something can't be put into
> > > >words, it's existence becomes a matter of faith.
> >
> >[Marsha]
> > > I wonder about this. There are experiences that are beyond my
> > > ability to find appropriate words to explain them. That doesn't seem
> > > to diminish the experience for me, but might require some kind of
> > > faith from a listener that I'm not spouting complete nonsense or "new
> > > age" gibberish?
> >
> >"Born again" Christians have a direct experience of God so I'm told which
> >supports their faith. Those who agree with the MOQ put faith in DQ as a
> >catalyst for change, even though DQ can't be fully described in
> >words. As I've argued before, all beliefs are based on faith when you
> >get right down to it, but the foundation of one's beliefs is often
> >inexpicable.
Platt,
Direct experience does not require faith, or words for that
matter. Inorganic patterns do not require faith, or
words. Biological patterns do not require faith, or words. It seems
only patterns from the Social and Intellectual levels represent
beliefs. There are experiences that are not described in words, that
do not require faith.
Experience has proven (through experience) that it is the catalyst
for change. Experience is change, no faith required. You've already
agreed that direct experience does not require any faith. The MOQ is
a framework (analogue), and DQ is an analogue. Interpretation may
require faith, experience does not require faith.
Who are you?
Marsha
*************
DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing
collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
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/
