From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 13:56:08 BST
Dear Wim,
Guess we're having problems understanding one another.
> Distinguishing self and non-self doesn't require a distinction between
> subject and object, let alone a metaphysical one. It is just the
> distinction between the patterns of value one identifies with and those
> one doesn't identify with.
For me, self/nonself is a disguised version of the S/O division, the
same as self/other. Agree the S/O division is about patterns of value,
but I don't see where my identifying myself with one or the other side
of the division has any effect on the division itself. Other disguised
S/O divisions include:
appearance/reality
faith/knowledge
ideal/real
individual/collective
nurture/nature
ought/is
purpose/chance
quality/quantity
reflection/source
soul/body
theory/practice
us/them
values/facts
within/without
> Contemplation as I understand it is only a limited extension of
> rationality. For me human intuition and emotion (that differ from animal
> intution and emotion by employing symbols) are the primary ways to
> transcend ego-centered rationality.
First, I don't understand why rationality is ego-centered. Secondly, I
don't understand what you mean by intuition and emotion employing
symbols. Are the Christian cross and the Communist hammer and sickle
examples of emotional symbols? What would be an example of an intuition
symbol?
> By repeating 6 Sep. 'Life's purpose.' in reply to my 'Whose purpose?',
> do you mean that life doesn't HAVE these purposes but GIVES those
> purposes?? We were talking about an alternative explanation of evolution
> for scientific 'oopsism'. You suggested purposeful creation by a 'life
> force' as alternative. If we humans grant purposes on behalf of life
> (being part of it) or on behalf of that 'life force' (embodying it), as
> you suggested 6 Sep., that can hardly be an explanation of evolution,
> can it? That would imply explaining creation from an activity of one of
> its creatures. I agree with equating DQ with such a 'life force', but
> only as purpose, not as purpose-giver. DQ and that 'life force' are then
> purposes without a subject that grants them. Patterns of value 'migrate
> towards DQ'. No-one is guiding them. That's no 'oopsism' in disguise.
> It's just the 'natural' result of 'patterns' being only 'patterns' and
> no 'absolutely enforced laws'.
I don't understand your distinction between having a purpose and giving
a purpose. To me, the life force has within itself the purpose of
creating, maintaining and expanding itself, just as within you and I is
a purpose to maintain our ability to have purposes. Life creates both
by itself and through the activity of its creations.
To me, the life force is the same as universal consciousness. Our
brain, an overgrown bulb of nerve tissue, taps into this consciousness.
Of course, scientific materialism rejects any notion of an independent
consciousness having it's own purposes and creative powers. Instead it
relies on "chance" to explain what it can't grab and toss into its
little cage of measurable phenomena. Of course, as you and I agree,
when science invokes "chance" it really means "We don't know."
Regards,
Platt
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 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 13:54:32 BST