From: gav (gav_gc@yahoo.com.au)
Date: Thu Sep 08 2005 - 10:22:49 BST
hi there,
i dont see how this is different to the MOQ.
see below for comments
> The "discrete particulars" of existential otherness,
> like the finite
> "no-things" that experience them, are transitory
> phenomena that have meaning
> only in terms of relative or conditional value. As
> no-things, we can't be
> the source of that value; we can only reflect upon
> it and respond to it as
> free agents.
man is the measure of all things
> My theory is that Value is an
> experiential manifestation of
> the Essence which is its source. In the
> life-experience each of us
> identifies with a unique configuration of values
> that relate to these
> particulars.
each of us *is* a unique configuration of values
> I call this our "value complement"
> because it represents what
> was lost (denied) to us -- the Beauty that you love,
> for example -- when we
> were negated from Essence as individuals. I also
> maintain that it is
> precisely this value-complement, rather than the
> negate with its trail of
> memories or some spirit vestige of the person, that
> is restored to Essence
> when life ceases for us.
everything is value: value returns to Value
> I think this valuistic philosophy goes farther than
> the MoQ in satisfying
> the individual's need for a non-theological belief
> system. There are
> several reasons why I believe this to be a
> "sensible" thesis:
can you explain how it goes farther?
>
> 1) It is supported in various ways by visionaries
> such as Eckhart,
> Plotinus, and Nicholas of Cusa; by philosophers like
> Schopenhauer,
> Heidegger, Hegel, William James, and Allen Watts;
> and by more recent
> thinkers, including J.A. Wheeler, Donald Hoffman,
> and Phillip Johnson.
>
> 2) It offers a plausible ontology to account for
> the creation of a
> differentiated evolutionary world by an absolute
> immutable source.
>
> 3) It introduces an anthropocentric perspective of
> reality based on the
> autonomy of man as the free agent and choicemaker in
> a deterministic
> universe.
we can't help but have an anthropocentric view of
reality.
and yes we have free will and choice; and there is
also an implicate order, design or way or fate if you
like. this paradox can't be cleared up by looking at
the problem as aristotle might. rather wu wei.
wu wei the concept of action in non-action or doing
without doing, illustrates how free will or human
agency can merge with the 'way', with the implicate
order, the divine plan... in *good* circumstances -
the selfish and the selfless become one. goodbye
ethics 101
>
> 4) It proves that Essence cannot be indigenous to
> individuality and
> relational beingness, and it vindicates the
> inaccessibility of Absolute
> Truth as consistent with the principle of Individual
> Freedom.
>
> 5) It accommodates the spirituality of religion but
> not the theological
> dogma, positing Value as the essence of man and the
> inextricable link to his
> creator.
value is the creator.
this is actually a big Q i reckon, is it a problem to
conflate a creator with the big Q?
okay on one hand yes, cos you are limiting the
unlimited, differentiating the undifferentiated,
making the dynamic static.
but if consciousness is the mode of existence of
quality then perhaps it is helpful to think of one big
unified consciousness, of which we are all a 'reduced'
(or regulated) version of. is this a step towards a
creator?hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> > The mystic's experience of "oneness" is a result
> > of temporarily superseding the limits of the human
> regulator, which from
> > an evolutionary view, lets in more light of
> awareness than any of its
> > predecessors.
>
> The same sort of experience has been claimed for
> LSD, peyote and marijuana.
> If man was meant to experience such mind-altering
> effects, the human brain
> would have been designed to achieve Nirvana without
> the necessity of
> self-hypnosis and chemical substances. I would
> suggest that we keep our
> brains intact for the tasks and decisions required
> in this world,
> which is why we're here in the first place.
bzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong answer. if man were meant to
experience these things they would occur naturally on
the planet...oh and they do! shit man if you are going
to separate enlightened philosophy from some of the
best tools to help us get there...that's silly and not
very fun.
>
> > "On the death of any living creature the spirit
> returns to the spiritual
> > world, the body to the bodily world. In this,
> however, only the body is
> > subject to change. The spiritual world is one
> single spirit who stands
> > like unto light behind the bodily world and who,
> when any single creature
> > comes into being, shines through it as through a
> window. According to the
> > kind and size of the window less or more light
> enters the world. The light
> > itself however remains unchanged." -- Aziz Nasafi
>
> A fanciful scenario set in pretty prose. How far
> would it get as a
> metaphysical thesis?
its perfect. nasafi's prose that is.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
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 Sep 08 2005 - 11:50:15 BST