> DM: If we do not allow DQ some divine qualities, is there not a danger > that others will be driven to create something else to attach these > qualities to? > > [Krimel] > I don't think it makes sense to talk about DQ like this at all. DQ is not > a thing or a force. It is a property of Quality. It has descriptive value > not causal efficacy.
DM: Surely it does, as talk about god has been an attempt to talk about non-thing, non-force qualities. We might suggest that god talk is mis-guided DQ talk for us MOQers. [Krimel] I guess I just don't regard descriptions of appearance to necessarily be explanations; just as correlation indicates coincidence but not causality. We can use god-talk or purpose-talk or teleology-talk to help develop a personal orientation or a personal relationship to the events in our lives. After all everything that happens to me is personal. But while my lucky rabbit's foot might make me feel better in the face of chance, I think it is delusional to believe it actually brings good fortune. 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/
