Hi Joe, Thanks for the explanation. It's not that you are confusing, it's that I get confused. The burden of my scientific training leads to that.
Let me explain my view of scientific thought and religious or spiritual thought in another way. (I don't like the term religious since it has dogmatic connotations, and an apparent abuse of power. The church is political but that is not religion to me. Spirituality can become awfully dogmatic too, but I digress...) What you describe with the bones is a scientific line of inquiry. The arrow of inquiry is towards building blocks, "the spot on the bug on the leaf on the tree in the hole in the ground..." The spiritual arrow of inquiry is in the other direction, outward. The men, and the saints and the angels and the demigods and the godhead, etc. One arrow is pointing in one direction, the other in the other direction. By dividing Quality into two, that is a scientific approach, two parts make a whole, in a nice little box. Cheers, Willblake2 On Apr 27, 2009, at 1:04:04 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Markhsmit and all, As Marsha pointed out IMO is better written as imho (in my humble opinion). I am sorry my writing is so confusing. I will try to do better. I use quotations marks to highlight a word that is obscure to me. Imho the language of science leaves out a description of its metaphysical origins. It relies on an assumed acceptance of mathematical logic without a metaphysical description of logic or how mathematics fits in. Them bones! Them bones! Them dry bones! The arm bone connected to the shoulder bone! Them bones gonna walk around! A nice melody! Conscious/Mechanical, metaphysically describe a social level with free will. DQ (undefined) (conscious)/ SQ (defined) (mechanical) is the ruler. To measure is an action regarding quantity which is from SOM metaphysics, which MOQ replaces with experience. ³How does it strike me?² is a measure open to research by further questions. Assuming that to apply a scientific method to spirituality, or to apply a spiritual method to science may not be adequate, presupposes a metaphysics to limit the terms. Otherwise whatever you say is the metaphysical assumption. It is difficult to comprehend metaphysical assumptions when you obscurely change your point of view. You seem to correctly distinguish numbers of the female sex. Imho a number supports its own logic in a moment of indefinable experience. Joe 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/
