OK Krim, On your pragmatic conclusion "All I said what either system should be judged on how well it serves its mission."
Of course I agree ... I was commenting on the one point .. putting the beliefs cart before the experience horse. As you say yourself ... it does make sense ... that all beliefs are derived from experience (the first vs second hand jibe from DMB I simply re-inforced for effect). Even beliefs derived from other people's beliefs (the second hand ones) are derived from experiencing their actions (which includes their expresions of their beliefs, etc). What the MoQish / radical empiricist view brings to this is the reminder to discount anything that has already been objectified (by you or anyone else or language itself) prior to your own experience. And that goes for the value judgement / the quality call in your own pragnatic "how well it serves its mission" and how good that mission is to start with, ad infinitum .... But I'm cutting across a conversation you were already having. Ian On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: > Krim, you asked ... > "Shouldn't a belief system be judged by the amount of original > experience it gives rise to?" > > [Ian] > This is where DMB is right, that you have misunderstood (talking past) > the basic point about first-hand and second hand beliefs. Experience > doesn't "arise" out of anything other than experience ... and the > belief systems arise out of the experience (unless you prefer yours > second hand ?). > > [Krimel] > Come on Ian, how does that make any sense at all? How could I have a second > hand belief? I can't borrow someone else's belief and put it on like a > borrowed sweater. Or perhaps you mean that second hand beliefs are beliefs > derived from personal experience with someone else who shares beliefs that I > agree with and make my own. In that case how could I have a firsthand > belief? All of my experience revolves around my participation in the beliefs > of others. All of my beliefs are similarly derived. I don't see how the > distinction is at all meaningful. > > But even so how is Buddhism less of a second hand belief system than > Christianity? It is derived from the original experience of the Buddha. It > provides a system of thought and practice that is supposed to lead one to an > experience like the Buddha had. Christianity is a system of thought and > practice designed to lead one to an experience of fellowship with the living > God. All I said what either system should be judged on how well it serves > its mission. > > > 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/ > 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/
