Nice, Ron. The problem is when people stop reasoning out the reasoning behind their reasoning.
Heh-heh. No wonder most people tire of metaphysical discussion quickly. The trick is to always question, always remain open and not go crazy - to know when you have done "just enough". The trick is th On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:48 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > See, if one can not provide reasons for their beliefs > they can not make a value distinction on which ones are better. > > may as well be religous beliefs > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: X Acto <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:23:10 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks > > Marsha, > Not really, just a matter of preference and the ability to persuade > others. Convincing arguements tend to be based on reasonable > explanations. What are your reasons for a belief? > > But I don't think anyone can be convinced of anything unless > they are first open to being convinced.Thus the art of rhetoric. > > I just think there is a distinction between practicing this art well > and practicing it poorly. > > To reject reasons for beliefs, is in my opinion, practicing it poorly. > > -Ron > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:02:56 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks > > > Ron, > > This somehow seems like the difference between static value (patterns) and > value judgements (good! - bad! or reasonable - irrational!). I see the > same > issue with Magnus. Do you see value and value judgements as different, > or the same? > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Jul 17, 2010, at 10:49 AM, X Acto wrote: > > > > > > > [Platt] > > Reason (SOM) expanded human understanding of levels 1 and 2, but in so > doing > > left values in the dust and lost them there, going so far as to deny > their > > existence. The MOQ takes humanity to a new promontory of understanding > where > > one can see, if he will only open his eyes, a new reality of Quality > (values) > > whose structure makes reason (SOM) subordinate. > > > > Ron: > > SOM is not reason. Reason, or giving reasons for our beliefs instead of > > blind acceptance, is the intellectual level. SOM dominates reason > > because the explanations it provides yield a convincing arguement. > > > > But your explanation above sounds more like it relies on blind > acceptance. > > Because it rejects reasons for justifications of belief. Per SOL/SIM > > or whatever it's being called to avoid persecution by the moderator > > which convieniantly rejects any reasons for it's beliefs. > > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
