Sorry for making 2 posts tonight. Since the 1st was a summary of what
everyone else said I thought it would be ok to put in 2 cents too... ;)
Bodvar wrote on 12/16/98:
>...it has eluded
>a lot of people that "mysticism" is the legitimate child of
>subject-object metaphysics. They believe they "reject" dualism or
>whatever they call it by embracing new-age-like standpoints, but in
>doing so they CEMENT it. And what is worse: they believe that the MOQ
>is a new-age movement.
Donny replied on 12/18/98 to Bodvar:
>to say "mysticism is the child of SOM" makes no logical sense.
This may not be at all what Bodvar meant, but my take on it is that if one
lives in world completely defined by only subjects and objects, subjective
and objective, then in order to explain or make sense of anything that
doesn't fit one would have to have a mysticism. I don't think Bo is
referring to philosophical mysticism, but rather something supernatural or
new-age.
If matter is the only thing that's real, then you're almost forced into a
supernatural belief system of some sort in order to give meaning to all
those things that subject/object logic and SOM can't explain - the platypi.
Even the thoughts in your own head must ultimately be explained that way
since SOM doesn't acknowledge their validity. In SOM your thoughts are
'only' subjective. This might be a stretch, but how far off is
subjectivity from subjugation? If any thoughts you have that cannot be
verified by 'objective' experience have no independent status - no reality
unto themselves, then wouldn't it be logical under such a system to search
for some objective observer or objective plane somewhere to give them
validity? In other words, to 'subjugate' your internal experience to a
higher or 'objective' observer. We want and need confirmation for all those
thoughts we have that our subjective/objective viewpoint says are not real -
not valid.
Another reason one might be attracted to mysticism in a s/o world could be
simply because a s/o world takes all the fun out of it! If the only things
that are real are those that can be 'observed' objectively, and you're
constantly told that things like art, beauty, wonder, likes, and dislikes
have no value - are 'only' subjective, then in order to validate those
things - which you really feel, then you'd have to go outside the s/o system
to do it. The MOQ, on the other hand, validates all those thoughts and
experiences. It makes a place for art, beauty, likes and dislikes without
denying anything. The MOQ is whole and complete unto itself whereas the SOM
is not and constantly begs for supplementation. (Apologies Bo if I've taken
your ideas where never intended!)
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:45 BST