hiya,
> steve: Faith: The notion that the world as it is now is perfect and that > changing it would only ruin it. > > gav: i disagree here. i would say that faith is implicitly aware that you > can't ruin perfection - you can only peturb it. matt: yeah--you can't ruin _perfection itself_, that would be imperfect, but steve's point is that the notion that the world-is-a-perfection is the problem. gav: i guess it can be. i am thinking here of the whole mythos-logos confusion that karen armstrong addresses very well - especially in relation to the dawkins type misunderstandings of religion. briefly, that the value-truths of religious myth are overlooked or not noticed at all, in favour of (an often puerile) literal 'factual' interpretation. matt: that's why change is seen as bad, the perturbations as bad. gav: and also, by a similar logic, a whole raft of civil regulations and laws...though i do not subscribe to such naive logics. change is the only constant as they say - so taking umbrage at it would seem foolhardy at best (why does don quixote come to mind?). matt: and, along a different angle, not being able to actually effect a perfection--your point--breeds leibnizian thoughts of theodicy: this world is the best of all possible worlds, which voltaire laughed at as absurd and the rest of us should look at as a simplisitic apology of worseness that ameliorates the impetus to change it. gav: not necessarily. only from a SOM viewpoint (effector and effected, to use your terminology). the perfection of DQ (to return to the jargon de rigeur) underpins the MOQ. it is the source and apogee. from the mystical perspective of the MOQ therefore perfection is a truism. there is another perspective though - that seen through the lens of the different static levels of the MOQ. this is where the mind of man comes in - the mind that creates the MOQ. from this point of view man is encouraged to choose between competing moral values - opting for the higher value over the lower. this is a sort of training wheels morality in my point of view. the adult should (eventually) be in need of no explicit moral systems to guide them - it is all already there in the immediacy and totality of DQ. however this trust in oneself is a faculty that needs to be developed (because, as you mention later, our DQ sense has been suppressed through school etc). perhaps the real merit of the static levels is that it provides an explicit schema that is better than the others available and is in accord with the the higher mystical truth of the implicit morality of DQ. eventually the MOQ schema falls away as the individual gains insight and trust in themself - ie faith. matt: it punishes and supresses our DQ sense gav: if you refer to the misinterpretation of value-truths as fact-truths - in short, to 'anti-aesthetism', i am with you 100% _______ Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 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/ __________________________________________________________________________________ Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/ 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/
