[Arlo] > Here's why I am not a patient man. I re-read this stuff and I become > appalled.
The faith Arlo has in his intellectual superiority is wondrous to behold. > > [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/
