Hi Robert, Roger, Magnus, Mary and Group:
Robert�s challenge to the MoQ is fundamentally flawed.
1. Robert is wrong in saying that "SOM is monistic in the sense that
reality is made of only one thing -- matter." SOM reality consists of
matter AND mind.
2. Robert ignores quantum physics when he claims, �There is a
structure to reality apart from experience." The assumption that
reality exists independent of observation has been proven wrong.
Any persuasive metaphysics must acknowledge the findings of
modern science.
3. Robert claims that a growing tree that defies the law of gravity can
be explained by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis explains how but
doesn't explain "Why?" The MoQ answers the harder question.
4. Robert explains morality as an emanation of "sensitivity" guided
by an "attitude of love" that "changes and flows with reality." In other
words "if it feels good do it." I prefer a morality anchored in reason
per the MoQ rather than a morality spewed from emotion per New
Age psychobabble.
5. Robert offers no explanation for quality but argues for a point of
view he implicitly believes is better than the MoQ. Do I detect a
interior contradiction? Where is value in Robert's worldview other
than what his "intuition" determines?
Seems to me that Robert or anyone attacks the MoQ should propose
something better. From what Robert has told us so far, I don't see
any betterness.
But I could be wrong. I look forward to his further contributions and
thank him for inserting a challenge into the discussion.
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
