Arlo, LoL.
That's not showing me were I made the claims you attribute to me, it only proves YOU made claims and attributed them to me through a failure to understand my point to pretend you had some sort of valid critique of it. Bottom line, you still just don't get it. If you have any intellectual honesty, PLEASE, try to follow me on this one more time: >From the start I noted I used the word "faith" in its common definition "affirmation absent proof." The definition is commonly accepted, and presumes "proof" to be some sort of accepted standard of rational understanding of reality. It presumes rational reason, science, "evidence" to be "real", to be "proof" Most people use "faith" in this way, and my using it that way is nothing strange. Yes, in that definition there is a presumption that science does not take faith, a failure to acknowledge that "proof" is equally suspect as an understanding of reality when you get right down to it. BUT THAT'S MY F'ING POINT, Arlo; "faith" is defined by reason's POV of reality. MoQ's Quality is outside reason. Therefore MoQ is more in the realm of faith than of reason. Pirsig affirms this; Quality of the MoQ is pre-conceptual. It cannot be proven rationally through reason or evidence. As such, affirmation of MoQ's Quality is in the realm of "faith." > [Michael] > Post the link where I did otherwise or shut the hell up about it > already, its getting annoying and childish. > > [Arlo] > YOU said, that the AFFIRMATION of that experience AS Quality takes > faith. > > I asked, does all experience "affirmed" take faith? If not, provide > ONE experience we affirm AS something that does NOT take faith. > > You couldn't name one. Can you now? > > You said, "As such, I was right; you have no place to affirm that > Quality is any more valid than Leprechaunism, as they are both based > on faith, and as such all entirely a subjective choice to believe in > one thing or another as being true, valid or even real." > > Hence, leprechauns, god or Quality are all matters of "faith". We > have no more evidence of Quality than we do of Leprechauns of God. > > You think you get around the reductionism by saying you are "using a > specific definition of faith". "It's all just flavors of > Kool-Aid". > > You keep insisting *I* said all this, when it my MY assertion that > Quality requires NO faith that got your dander up. YOU replied > saying > "believing" in Quality is akin to "believing" in god or leprechauns. > I said NO. YOU said YES. > > So then I asked, if Quality takes faith... WHAT DOESN'T? > > This was when you replied "experiencing Quality" does not require > faith, but "affirming" that experience as Quality takes faith. > > So I asked (as I stated above), does ALL experience AFFIRMED require > faith? Or are there some experiences we can "affirm" that does not > require "faith" in so doing? Can you give examples? > > So here you go. As straight as I can say it. Quality DOES NOT > require > faith. Hence, how you claim that *I* am reducing everything to > "faith" is just horrible rhetoric. > > YOU say it ALL requires faith. I ask, if Quality requires faith, > what > DOESN'T? YOU have wrapped a blanket of "faith" around Quality to > protect "theism" from being dismissed as being "faith-based". But > YOUR blanket catches everything, and your only escape is that you > dissect faith into different kinds of "faith". But its all still > faith. > 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/
