Ian:
> I don't think the MoQ is paralyzed, just certain
> avenues of MD debate.
SA: Yes, true. The moq is not paralyzed. "Certain
avenues of MD debate" are paralyzed, it would seem,
and to further my point, which is the debates are
paralyzed only to the extent that we would want others
to agree with our particular viewpoints. This is to
be kept in mind. The list I provided were usual
disgusted expressions of when participants on this
forum find others don't agree with them. They then go
on to say, the moq is too mystic, unscientific,
paralyzed, 'we don't agree', and 'too much SOM is
here', etc... It's the weeding out of what is truly
paralyzed in the forum discussion, and what is simply
two or more viewpoints. The latter is democratic and
would simply require tolerance.
Ian:
> Like, how do you even start to argue / debate with
> anyone who cannot
> see any significant difference in the words "a" and
> "the" ?!?! What is
> the point ?
SA: true. When the details that are significant are
overlooked, as in the "a" and "the" case, then how
much is overlooked that is significant in the long run
of the discussion? Lots I would say.
Ian:
> Anyway, me to you.
> Paradox is good, real, a practical fact of life -
> truth (without any
> capitalization or the definite article) is full of
> it - so we live and
> work with it. Paradox doesn't say anything about
> whether we can agree
> or not. That's a matter of wanting to agree. We can.
> How we handle it
> can be generative or degenerative as you say.
SA: I guess what I'm pointing out is with intellect
being seemingly paradoxical, then some may want to
quit there and say 'truth' or 'Truth' is paradox. For
instance, the strange-loops, the circular talk, the
dualistic notions, these seem contradictory, but then
when one bridges these dualistic notions with say,
compassion, then what seems contradictory on the
surface, a paradox, is given dualistic roles that
don't conflict with each other, but work together with
each other. So, a third 'force' or attribute has
stepped into a seemingly dualistic paradox, and now
the paradox is not the end of the discussion. A
furthering the discussion on what is actually
'dominating' or 'governing' the paradox is more
foundational so one may see this more foundational
goverance, compassion, as more true.
Ian:
> The MoQ is "mystic" (if I understand that word), but
> it is not
> anti-scientific; More, it enlightens science by
> bringing the mystic
> angle to the table. Science which is too sure of its
> materialist
> objectivity, to the exclusion of the mystic, is
> misguided.
SA: Yes.
Ian:
> In the sense that difference is quality, and the
> paradox we refer to
> is a source of DQ, it is fundamental to MoQ, so we
> might be tempted to
> think of it as "The Truth" .... but I'd want to know
> what implications
> / baggage get attached to that choice. How
> fundamental, how fixed for
> all time, how outside the metaphysics, etc ....
SA: As noted above, I'm saying paradox is not the
most fundamental.
gotta go,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
