> dmb said MP said to Andre [who supposedly said]: > I disagree. [That Quality is known in experience and requires no > faith.]
MP: That's not what Andre said. Andre said: "Quality you experience and is *affirmed* every minute of the moment. No faith required, constantly *affirmed.*" Essentially, that Quality is *affirmed* without faith, by experience alone. Nothing about what *Quality* requires, only that faith is not required to affirm Quality. [all emphases mine.] Maybe it is you that understood Andre correctly and I not, but in the end, my comment was in response to *my* understanding of what Andre said, not the one you inserted into my words editorially (however more or less correct a linguistic expression of MoQ they may be regarding Quality.) Contrary to what you are saying, Quality itself may not require anything in itself to be affirmed or known, but to *affirm* Quality requires more than mere experience. It requires some kind of prerequisite knowledge of Quality to allow that affirmation through experience. FWIW: "Affirmed" <> "known" That may seem like a subtle linguistic distinction, but IMO its a vital one. I'm saying that experience only affirms Quality if one *already* has recognized something called Quality in the first place. One cannot simply affirm [A] exists without pre-existing cognizance of [A] on which to base such affirmation. As one cannot recursively affirm by previous affirmation ad infinitum, there must be an initiating event where the affirmation arises out of something OTHER than affirmation. As one cannot have objective evidence of Quality, Quality cannot be defined and Quality is not (for the sake of argument) a falsehood, the only other remaining "something else" that can give rise to such affirmation of Quality is faith. Even if its arrived at from a purely intellectual approach, it is still based on faith if it is absent objective evidence. If "faith" is too culturally loaded a word to allow yourself to use, too close to religion and theism for your intellectual comfort, maybe go with "personal conviction of truth absent objective rational evidence"? I don't know, that's yours to wrestle with. "Faith" sums it up well for me. > I can almost hear you saying, "Well, God is the reason I got out of > bed and I prefer hamburgers, or some such thing". MP: I didn't say any such thing. You might want to up the meds to take care of any remaining voices you hear ... ;-) MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
