> [Arlo] > A "rock" is a pattern deriving from atoms responding to quality > inorganically; or if you prefer, responding to "betterness" inorganically.
MP: Affirmed. Now *prove.* > [Arlo] > 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. MP: Ok. This is getting tedious. NO. Lets try that again. NO. I am NOT saying this. YOU are. I acknowledged that we could reduce all of reality to a meaningless stew if we want to with this line of thought, but that ultimately we all know its idiotic. Only you persist with it because its your only way out from my challenge, but, well ... I started with a very simple statement: "It takes faith to affirm Quality." And I indicated I'm using the very common definition of fiath "affirmation absent proof." I'm not redefining anything. Its very simple Arlo; "Affirmation of Quality is an affirmation absent proof." Unless you can prove what you say about rock atoms and "betterness" you cannot refute my statement. The question is... *why* do you feel you *must* refute it? IMO, one can't by MoQ design. Quality *is* affirmed absent proof because proof is the ultimate measure of SOM and affirmation of MoQ Quality is a rejection of SOM. But this is not a weakness, it is MoQ's deepest strength. It shows that MoQ is outside the shackles of reason in its fundamental underpinning; you can't "prove" Quality. Yet it is so simple and as you all point out "experientially affrimable" that it makes the lack of rational proof irrelevant (where in contrast a theistic religion, also an affirmation absent proof is rather lost.) I don't think acknowledging my point means MoQ is degraded to a religion just because faith can be defined as "affirmation absent proof." Nor has that ever been my intention no matter how loudly you all want to proclaim it as part of your defense mechanism. To the contrary it shows just how well MoQ unifies the underpinnings of religion, science and philosophy in a new paradigm. But by rejecting my point as you do in reaction to my use of the word "faith" in my observation of Quality, you all are ironically cementing MoQ deeper into SOM; arguing experience is "proof?" Come on! Do you not hear yourselves? Even as an MoQ neophyte I see the error in this. This is SOM language *you* are creeping into the MoQ to defend it from a phantom of your own creation. And you all do it as a result of some fanatic aversion to the use of the word "faith" where this word is perfect to describe what's going on. I may not be the expert on Quality, but being a theist I know reactionary response when I see it. If you all ever expect MoQ to be anything more than some obscure esoteric cult philosophy, you need to learn to build bridges. Instead you all seem hell bent on building ever stronger defensive walls. Which is more static? 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/
