Here's why I am not a patient man. I re-read this stuff and I become appalled.
[Michael] Quality is not mere experience in the MoQ. [Arlo] "... Quality is so simple, immediate and direct... Quality is the response of an organism to its environment." (ZMM) [Michael] Either way, who of you is prepared to prove that a rock is a rock because a dog lays down in the light? [Arlo] What the component particles of a rock do has nothing to do with what a dog does. And you accuse ME of "linguistic semantics"! Ai yi yi. A "rock" is a pattern deriving from atoms responding to quality inorganically; or if you prefer, responding to "betterness" inorganically. A dog napping in the sun is evidence of a a biological pattern of value responding to "betterness" biologically. [Michael] Either rocks experience being a rock, or quality is not just experience. [Arlo] A rocks experience of, and repertoire of responses to, Quality is very mundane (from our vantage). And of course phrased like this it alludes to some "self-consciousness of being" that is impossible on the inorganic level. That comes only at the social level, when words and language can be used to frame "I am X". [Michael] I'm noting that when one affirms that what we know as experience also makes rocks rocks, its an affirmation of something more than mere experience. This is not mere linguistic semantics. [Arlo] Oh dear god. It's nothing BUT linguistic semantics. What it does is make ALL affirmations "faith-based". And you've said as much already (yeah, yeah, you want different flavors of faith, I get it). In other words, ALL intellectual patterns are faith-based (oh sure, again, different flavors of faith for science and religion, but faith nonetheless). What you are doing is redefining "faith" so that it can be seen as a foundation of ALL intellectual patterns. I get it, that way you can't denigrate theism for being faith-based. [Michael] Linguistic semantics is what Arlo gets himself into when he attempts to render the word faith meaningless by re-defining proof using the word faith... [Arlo] HA! That's too funny. If not annoying. YOU are the one redefining faith so that you can show how faith is under everything. Sure, from there you can go on about one type of faith or another type of faith. But it's all faith. Me, I have no need to use this word for something other than what it means. Certainly, within the MOQ, the usage you suggest is ridiculous. [Michael] I have been clear about how I am using Faith. Failure to accept that definition as being the one *I* say *I* used when *I* said what I said is mere obstinacy on the part of those who do so. [Arlo] Sure you're being clear. You're trying to define it so that it applies to everything. You did the SAME THING with "theism". [Michael] So while MoQers here can loudly, adamantly and in some cases altogether arrogantly proclaim that one doesn't need faith (even the definition I used) to affirm Quality, they can ONLY proclaim this while they limit Quality to be the experience of static organic patterns of quality. [Arlo] No. They can, and rightly do, proclaim it while seeing Quality as the foundation of all things, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. [Michael] Affirmation absent proof. [Arlo] Yeah, this is becoming a mantra. Okay, give me ONE example of an "affirmation WITH proof". Any ONE. I bet you can't, because its evident that in your view ALL affirmations are ultimately faith (of one flavor or another). [Michael] Faith as I am using it is "affirmation absent proof." It is an affirmation. It is an action. It is a concious decision to believe something that takes more than reason to understand. [Arlo] And again. Give me an example of something we can believe that DOES NOT take more than reason to understand. Just ONE. [Michael] It appears to be the one you all reflexively defend against in your adamant opposition to theism, and that says more about your opinions on theism than anything else. [Arlo] I think everyone here has been more than fair and forthcoming with trying to explain the MOQ. Your incessent need to define faith and theism so broadly as to apply to everything says more about YOU than about anyone here. [Michael] By saying the affirmation of Quality takes faith I am saying that to affirm Quality one must make an affirmation that rejects "proof", rejects SOM as the basis of understanding. [Arlo] So "proof" is SOM. We can have no "proof" of anything outside S/O reasoning. Is THAT your position?? [Michael] bring MoQ down to the level of defending itself using linguistic semantics. [Arlo] That cracks me up. I used to call this type of rhetorical play "The Pee Wee Maneuver", from Pee Wee's catch phrase "I know what you are but what am I?". Basically, accuse everyone upfront of doing what you are doing. Ai yi yi. Yeah, no patience here... 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/
