> Ron: > god/DQ= not fully understood....not misunderstood, although your next > sentence > could apply to both in this respect.. >
Ok, I get what you mean Ron. And I think I see my source of confusion. I've run into this before and it's because I conflate mathematical equality with rhetorical equality and it doesn't work, does it. Like in math, if A=B, then B=A. But in Rhetoric, if God = "not fully understood" is not quite the same thing as saying whatever is "not fully understood" equates to God. See my confusion? Silly me. > Ron: > I agree, that to those who understand the meaning, God is synonomous > with the good, in others words our values. Which means, that both god > and good is a matter of personal values making both god and good contextual > in meaning. > Ok, "personal values" oughta be clarified to "personally chosen values" because just "Personal values" all by itself makes it seem like values arise from individuals - you know, the Hammian worldview, rather than that interpretative interaction between the individuals and their environment - the Pirsigian view - which retains contextual meaning because every individual has a unique nature/social matrix as their environment. > Ron: > "Good" or Quality, is an abstract noun > Is it? Here's the Pirsigian insight - even though good cannot be defined, it can be experienced - you KNOW what it is. That makes it concrete as hell. It really is a solution to the Kantian divide, between the world of description and the world of appreciation. So I guess "good" in this sense is debatable as to abstract or concrete. > "An abstract noun is a type of noun that refers to something a > person cannot physically interact with. A noun is a person, > place or thing. However, in many cases, the 'thing' might > be an intangible concept – which means it is an abstract > form of noun. In this instance, abstract means to exist > apart from concrete existence. A noun that is abstract is > an aspect, concept, idea, experience, state of being, > trait, quality, feeling, or other entity that cannot be > experienced with the five senses." > -your dictionary > > Or it could mean experience or being ie "I am" > The only problem with good as being, is that sometimes it sucks to be. Sometimes individual being isn't good at all, sometimes experience is just plain bad. And yet, this doesn't obviate good. In fact, I'd rather say it confirms it. > > Ron: > A Pragmatist would respect another's value for the pedestrian > understanding > of the term "God" for it's a concept which holds meaning. But in the same > breath, would not deem it nessecary for it to have meaning for each > individual > universally and I think thats the whole arguement in a nutshell. What did > George > Carlin say? " Religion is like a pair of shoes. Find one that is > comfortable for you, > but don't make me wear your shoes. And for Pete's sake, DON'T nail soles > onto onto the feet of the natives." > > Ah well, my religious stance is very firm and decided on this point. "This is my religion. Get your own." Is our Seventh Day Zen Rastafarian motto. John PS: Pretty busy lately, nice weather and all, but I gotta few more comments along this thread so don't think I'm finished. Heavens no. 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/
