From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 26 2004 - 18:30:39 BST
The Jaspers looks good to me, why change it?
your move is not attractive to me.
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: MD The individual in the MOQ
>
> Ham Priday to Scott Roberts and Paul Turner
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:50 AM
> Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
>
> Gentlemen, my posts seem to be arriving out of sequence, so I'm not sure
> when this exchange took place.
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > > Paul [to Ham]:
> > > No it isn't. It would, however, be illogical to state that Quality is
> > > everything and, if it can't be its own source, is therefore also not
> > > everything. (Although I think there is Indian logic which permits
this,
> > > but this logic is usually used to point away from itself to an
> > > alternative understanding. I'm sure Scott will correct me :-))
> >
> > [Scott:] Naturally :-). The correction I would make is that the logic is
> > not used to point away from itself to an alternative understanding. For
> one
> > thing, in the item under investigation it points to the impossibility of
> > any understanding, in the sense of something one can capture
discursively.
> > But also, it does not want to point away from itself, but to keep one's
> > attention on the something and its discursive incomprehensibleness. I
> would
> > add (since I'm not all that sure the Indians would agree, or not all of
> > them), that it points toward the incomprehensibleness as the item's
> nature,
> > that what is to us incomprehensibility is to the item its source of
> > creativity, or modus operandi, or something like that.
> > - Scott
>
> At the risk of violating the rules here, may I suggest that chasing around
> to find a logic that "permits" one conclusion over another is not helpful
> when the goal is simply to explain a concept and its meaning. Logic does
> not apply to undifferentiated Quality or Essence, anyway, and its use to
> validate (or invalidate) a metaphysical scenario is a distraction to
> understanding.
>
> I think it was David Morey who suggested that I look into Heidegger's
> non-dualism to better understand MOQ. While I admire Heidegger as an
> analytical thinker, his emphasis on being-there (the "dasein" concept of
> existentialism) is contradictory to the philosophy of Essence. I much
> prefer Karl Jaspers' insight.. Jaspers writes with great clarity (even
read
> in translation), and his discussion of "The Comprehensive" has application
> to both of the metaphysics in question. The following is from chapter 3
of
> his small volume "Way to Wisdom".
>
> "What is the meaning of this ever-present subject-object dichotomy? It
can
> only mean that being as a whole is neither subject nor object but must be
> the Comprehensive, which is manifested in this dichotomy.
>
> "Clearly being as such cannot be an object. Everything that becomes an
> object for me breaks away from the Comprehensive in confronting me, while
I
> break away from it as subject. For the I, the object is a determinate
> being. The Comprehensive remains obscure to my consciousness. It becomes
> clear only through objects, and takes on greater clarity as the objects
> become more conscious and more clear. The Comprehensive does not itself
> become an object but is manifested in the dichotomy of I and object. It
> remains itself a background, it boundlessly illumines the phenomenon, but
it
> is always the Comprehensive.
>
> "But there is in all thinking a second dichotomy. Every determinate
object
> is thought in reference to other objects. Determinacy implies
> differentiation of the one from the other. And even when I think of being
> as such, I have in mind nothingness as its antithesis.
>
> "Thus every object, every thought content stands in a twofold dichotomy,
> first in reference to me, the thinking subject, and secondly in reference
to
> other objects. As thought content it can never be everything, never the
> whole of being, never being itself. Whatever is thought must break out of
> the Comprehensive. It is a particular, juxtaposed both to the I and to
> other objects.
>
> "Thus in our thinking we gain only an intimation of the Comprehensive. It
> is not manifested to us, but everything else is manifested in it."
>
> Jaspers concludes this section with the statement: "Suffice it to say that
> the Comprehensive, conceived as being itself, is called transcendence
(God),
> and the world, while as that which we ourselves are it is called
> being-there, consciousness, mind, and existence." I depart from Jaspers
> only with respect to his definition of the Comprehensive (Essence) as
> "being", as I regard beingness as an "intellectualized" property of
> experienced objects rather than the nature of Essence itself.
>
> Does this bring us closer to understanding, or am I only inviting a
> firestorm by introducing a "theistic" existentialist to the discussion?
>
> Essentially,
> Ham
>
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 26 2004 - 20:28:45 BST