Hi Margaret
I just wondered if there weren't some
common ground between Ham and his essentialism
and the MoQ'ers?
I'm sure there are, but I'm afraid they would vanish in comparison with the
differences. Such as, according to Ham, the world only exists because humans are
here to observe it. I know many people have asked Ham about how humans came to
be, but I'm not sure he has given an answer that doesn't involve a god of some sort.
It would really help me to read a simple, concrete
set of examples of what makes the two philosophies
so completely opposed to each other.
Yes, but the bigger issue is why Ham is here in a MoQ forum advocating a
completely different philosophy in the first place.
I think that a philosophy has
to be such that a child can basically grasp it.
Yes, that would of course be nice, but I'm afraid as soon you start digging into
any philosophy, it gets more complex. Also, if the MoQ was so easy to
understand, what would we have done here for the past 10 years? :)
Magnus
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/
