On 18 February 2009 3:02 PM Bo writes: Hi Joe, perhaps Micael Poloukhine, All
17 Feb. you wrote: Bo before: > > Well, let me not stray, the issue was the intellect vs society > > struggle showing itself in the Western culture's unique > > faith/skepticism dichotomy, that to my knowledge is unknown to all > > other cultures I don't know about any upheaval caused by Darwin's > > theory in Judaism and Islam that I believe has the same Genesis in > > their holy books. Joe: > IMO There is no clear theory of how we know things. MOQ is > evolution. DQ/SQ is conceptualization. Yet DQ participates in > evolution. DQ is an undefined term used in two different ways. It wasn't a question about how we know things ...etc. , but why only the Western/Christian culture has developed what we call scientific skepticism, why science meddles with religion, and why religion feels threatened by science? > Considering evolution, there are only so many possibilities. Why? > Our knowledge is limited. Why? One answer is that if the past is > any guide the future is unknown e. g., MOQ transplanting SOM. There are lots of Israeli scientists and some must work in the biological evolution field, but I have never heard about any creation vs evolution debate among Jews. And what is taught in Israeli schools?. Likewise, there are universities in Muslim countries and - perhaps - scientists. What do they teach? And why dones't science undermine Islam? . > S/O is a part of knowledge. Is there a further evolution of S, > creating a seemingly twisted perception of O. I say yes. S evolves > to two further levels than the combination of S/O. Nonsense! This > is possible only if evolution itself upholds S. Pretty vague! > Undefined! Yet this seems to be the only reasonable explanation for > visionaries like Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Christ, Mohammed, etc. Either you are wise beyond comprehension or just ... ;-) Try to comcentrate on the issue. Is the reason for the above situation that Christendom after Enlightenment tried to adjust and make God a scientist? I believe so and this went well at first, but in the long run it back-lashed. In a MOQ context it was a social pattern - religion - trying to ride an intellectual pattern (science) That could not last and it was thrown off. Jewdom and Islam never pretended to be "scientific" and ... did they benefit or? Bo Hi Bo and all, In my study of medieval philosophy I recall Arabian authors Avicenna, and Averrhoes in the 12th century discussing Aristotle before Thomas Aquinas. I believe Aquinas quotes them. Also Moses Maimonides was mentioned. I guess Arabian and Jewish philosophy was SOM. Evolution is later and I have no idea how Arabian and Jewish thought incorporates evolution into their culture. As for a theory of how we know things, abstraction etc., I imagine William James, Pirsig and others are fairly recent, and have not been absorbed into Jewish or Arabian culture. As far as being incomprehensible. I am sure my writing is disjointed as I try to express how I feel things. Emotions and senses though indefinable are as much a part of knowledge as Intellectual expression. It is easy to make knowledge mechanical. I try to fight that and add emotional and sensational elements. I am sorry if it is obscure. I won¹t be posting much as my mail program refuses to act normally, and my memory is not so hot. Please excuse! Joe > 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/
