From: Scott Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 20 2005 - 04:22:25 BST
I guess it's agreed by Scott and Paul that 'time'and 'space' are
However, Paul and I have such different takes on what counts as an
intellectual pattern (I say all patterns are intellectual, whether humans
are involved or not) that it is hard to call this agreement.
In my opinion, they're just that, and they don't link to the 'time' and
'space' that all sentient beings 'experience'. They're an intellectual
pattern just as 'a pink elephant with 9 legs and 3 eyes' is an intellectual
pattern. One can talk about it, one has a mental image of it but it reflects
nothing from perceived reality.
Time and space are never directly experienced, so they are no
stattic-quality pattern on any level. They sort of are the follow-up of us
experiencing change and organic and inorganic static quality. They're the
minds sollution to deal with that.
By this usage of "direct experience", you would have to say that Quality is
not directly experienced either. If I define time as "experience of change",
and space as "experience of separation" would you then say that they are
directly experienced? (This is the old Newton/Leibniz debate. You are, I
think, arguing against Newton, but I'm not sure anyone here is a Newtonian.)
Also, why is thinking not a direct experience?
With DQ and SQ being all there is, there's no need for space. With SQ really
being DQ in disguise, there's no need for time.
But there is a need, if one is doing metaphysics, to inquire into the
experience of separation and of change. For shorthand, call them 'space' and
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
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 - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 20 2005 - 04:39:41 BST