> Ron: > I think Michael is approaching this pragmatically, the question being > "is theism usefull in a Quality way?" sure, but it also perpetuates > objectivism (SOM) which is the downside which ultimately will > interfere with a quality understanding of what MoQ proposes.
MP: Again, Ron, thanks for succinct clarity. That sums it up. I acknowledge the downside, but given what I believe of culture as it is, see a greater one in ditching theism IMO prematurely, let alone actively attacking it. > Ron: > In effect when it comes right down to the major abstract concepts > and their understanding, the two will conflict. This is what needs > to be expressed to him.. MP: You just did ;-) > Ron: > Utimately essentialism is the problem. MP: I'm not a philospher by education. I will need to read up on essentialism. Suggestions are welcome, the less haughty the better; I have Aristotle to put me to sleep already. Soon as I'm done with the Campbell books I picked up today I will get to essentialism. Enjoying this folks. Glad I dared post. Only sorry dmb and I got off so poorly. 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/
