Hi Marsha, Yes, I still think that the label "atheist" has a lot of liabilities and I generally don't like to self-apply the term because of the misunderstandings and bigotry that so often go along with the term. But this sounds like a topic for another thread.
Best, Steve On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Steve, > > Wasn't it you that was pronouncing the 'end of atheism' about eight months > ago? I seem to remember you trying to convince me that to call oneself an > atheist was bad form. You seemed quite certain. Yet the other day you > labeled yourself an 'liberal atheist'. How certain is your understanding of > the MoQ? > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Peterson > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 1:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] British Emergentism > > Hi Bo, > > Marsha: >>> I very much agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level is comprised of >>> subject/object patterns, and I agree that there should be an emerging >>> Quality Level above the Intellectual Level. > > Bo: >> Good. Not because of us forming a faction, but because that is the >> only possible interpretation of the 4th. level that makes sense. >> Regarding the MOQ as a "level" it follows from not being (able to be) >> part of intellect because it (intellect) is part of the MOQ. >> >>> I believe the Quality Level represents a paradigm shift as large as the >>> shift from social patterns to intellectual patterns. > > > Steve: > The levels represent types of patterns of value. The social level > contains social patterns. The intellectual level contains intellectual > patterns. What is the "MOQ level" supposed to contain? MOQ patterns? > If so, what is an MOQ pattern? > > > > Marsha: >>> It puzzles me why everyone doesn't see it, because it seems so obvious >>> to me. It's like the differnece between Newtonian physics and Quantum >>> physics, a quantum leap. Bo may not agree with all my MoQ >>> interpretations, nor I agree with all his, but I did want to state on >>> these two point I definitaly agree with Bo. > Bo >> Quantum leap, you bet. > > Steve: > This is actually a good analogy because Newtonian physics and quantum > physics are both intellectual patterns just like subject object > metaphysics and and RMP's philosphical system are both intellectual > patterns. The "quantum leap" happens within the intellectual level. > > Best, > Steve > 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/ > > 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/ > 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/
