From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 18:49:03 BST
Hi Jos --
> I think I understand the hypothesis and I think it makes a lot of sense*,
> certainly got me thinking at any rate......
>
> What happens to an "other" concept, if for the purposes of debate
> we decide that there is no "not other".
My understanding of Cusa's theory is that, from the perspective of Primary
Reality (Essence), there is no other. From man's perspective, the other
that we experience is not other than Essence. In other words,
everything is essentially the One. It seems to me that this cosmology is
supported by the MoQ's concept of DQ. Which is to say, if you choose to
reject it, then you are also rejecting the MoQ. But if you "decide that
there is no not-other", you confront a reality in which everything is an
other to you, including both its source and your awareness. This conclusion
is metaphysically untenable if not also logically invalid.
> Of course the question is a complete wrong'un
> but it calls an image to mind, of a thing that is, out of balance, highly
> reactive, and extremely mobile. It would be a positive with no negative
> accelerating unopposed in all directions at once. Logically it just cant
be,
> as the "not other" is a requisite for its existence...
I take it this is an affirmation of my thesis.
> So undifferentiated essence ( DQ) creates static patterns, out of its
drive
> to balance this impossible unbalanced positive charge, and to justify the
> logic of its own existence. The static patterns are the "not other", but
> insignificant in charge/size/VALUE and creation of more is constantly
> favoured.
> DQ is like some sort of uranium fluoride ultimate free radical!
If a nuclear physics analogy helps your understanding, fine enough. But,
remember, relational attributes cannot be applied to a non-relational
source.
> My only questions then, are firstly; is my dumbed down banality
> anything like what you actually meant, and secondly, can we tell if this
> radical have [has?] some sort of half-life?
It's hard to say. I would rather not try to equate Essence with a polarized
entity. And I know nothing about radioactive half-lives.
> I disagree with the premises laid out in paragraphs one through 4
> though as IMO, as with most stuff around here, experience is not a
> single type of event.
This does trouble me. Awareness is NOT an "event" or a "behavior pattern".
All attempts to reduce awareness to an objective phenomenon or type of
activity sabotage the quest for truth. It's the cardinal sin of objective
materialism IMO.
> It has the inorganic will to exist in its current shape, to corrode, to
> adhere, etc...
> ...this is a type of experience ...
Wrong. There is NO "inorganic will". The laws of physics are NOT a type of
experience. That is a metaphor, not metaphysics, and it's a poor one at
that.
I said:
> I'm beginning to think the MD people have so
> blinded themselves to S/O that they don't really see the distinction!
You replied:
> I do understand the distinction you describe but I do not find that it is
> real.
I stand by my statement. If you can't see the difference between a behavior
problem exhibited by an object and you own awareness of the object, we are
talking at cross-purposes.
> The things that have experiences are static patterns of essence
> (quality) and the experience, is the valuation by one static pattern
> of essence, of sets of others.
This makes no sense at all to me. Nor does what follows:
> Consciousness is the experiences of complex high order
> static patterns of essence and existence happens through
> evolution. To bolster this, I think it is better to stop describing
> differentiation altogether, essence gets patterned but
> fundamentally it remains unchanged and however different
> two static patterns are from one another, their
> relationship to source remains a constant.)
If you don't see the significance of proprietary awareness, you won't
understand the value of, let alone the need for, a primary source.
> (BTW, you never replied to my rant of 06/09/05, what gives?)
I found your assertions unfounded and unworthy of a response. What you said
on 9/6 was:
> You call me a materialist because I want to explain how
> intellectual thought processes can influence tissue, why?
Because they do. Talk to a bio-physicist or neurologist.
> The MOQ is quite clear that intellect can only communicate with biology >
via the cultural level. You are, I suppose happy with this idea ...
I'm not happy with this idea because I don't believe it. Do you consult
with your culture to determine how you feel?
> The messenger is an electrical digitalised version of the
> message, which is an incomprehensible description of
> MYSTIC quality state, the emotion is our perception
> of this message.
I'll try to remember that the next time I have a toothache. Maybe if I tell
the dentist I'm experiencing a mystic quality state, he'll give me a
discount.
Obviously, we're not on the same page philosophically.
Regards,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 19:20:16 BST