Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 19:52:10 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Understanding Quality And Power"

    [Sam] Central to any account of Western intellectual history is the figure
    of Immanuel Kant, and considerations of mysticism are no different. A key
    concept to understand is what has come to be known as the 'Kantian
    problematic', which, in summary, goes something like this: all of our
    knowledge comes to us from experience. However, since experience is always
    our experience, it is never a pure experience, but is always mediated and
    conditioned by the structure of our minds and apprehension. What we
    experience are the phenomena, that which is provoked in us by the thing in
    itself; things in themselves are noumena, and unknowable.

    Hi Sam and all,

    My professor of scholasticism 43 years ago proposed to me a theory of
    knowledge called abstraction based on real (the object) and intentional (the
    subject) existence. The mind is different in existence from matter. IMO the
    'Kantian problematic' uses this theory of abstraction proposed by Aristotle.
    Phenomena is mind- subjective, and noumena is outside the mind-objective. I
    accepted the abstraction theory until I read Pirsig. The MOQ proposes a
    better explanation of knowledge, Everything is Quality.

    I have not read Schleiermacher. I reacted to the quotes you proposed from
    Grace Jantzen. I interpreted from those quotes that Schleiermacher simply
    proposed a new faculty 'immediate consciousness or feeling'. If that is a
    wrong interpretation I am sorry! IMO He does not deny the Kantian
    abstraction, only that Kant didn't see deeply enough.

    The MOQ denies the Kantian abstraction. The mind, outside the mind split
    occurs through evolution within the inorganic order. It is your opinion that
    'the MOQ parallels Schleiermacher'. I have a different opinion that they
    come to a seemingly same solution from different directions. The 'mind' of
    the MOQ has different characteristics, and may well be a creation of
    'awareness' by the Intellectual level. Scott Roberts has done yeoman work in
    explaining Intellect/intellect. The criticisms of Schleiermacher might apply
    to Scott's proposal, but that is bad procedure to carry criticisms across
    metaphysical lines. The metaphysics changes the application of the
    observation.

    IMO Pirsig proposes an idealism in awareness, not in evolution.

    I find it interesting that 'feeling' and 'emotion' are suggested as the
    origin of the mystical experience. IMO the awareness of evolution of the
    social level creates an experience expressed by Struan's 'emotivism'. I
    prefer to see the social level as order. IMO Existence determines order. I
    find no contradiction in a mystical experience of inorganic, organic, social
    (emotional) .........absolute, intellectual level. The absolute as creative
    is an acceptable experience of order in the social level. It is dogma in the
    other levels. IMO creation in the intellectual order is acceptable
    experience as personality and awareness. Are order and creative awareness
    different? What comes to mind is the real thing and an image of the real
    thing. In evolution creation comes after order and is a higher level.

    The Edge of Chaos, The Sweet Spot, has been in my thoughts, and I felt it
    applied the experience of 'emanation' outside an evolutionary framework. To
    me it seems 'emanation' is valuable in a line of thought that 'embodies?'
    mystical experience in the discrimination between levels. (I didn't say that
    bery well, but I hope you cee tyhe analogy.)

    Joe

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:40 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

    > Hi Joe,
    >
    > thanks for the response, but would you be able to unpack things a bit
    > more. Specifically:
    >
    >> joe: IMO no! Schleiermacher's schema has roots in a division between
    >> mind-will-soul and matter. The term 'immediate consciousness' used by
    >> Grace
    >> Jantzen reflects the presence of a mind- will-soul.
    >
    > Please do explain how "Schleiermacher's schema has roots in a division
    > between mind-will-soul and
    > matter". You're probably right, but it isn't immediately obvious why.
    >
    >> IMO following the MOQ's
    >> description of experience, DQ/SQ, Quality has evolved the levels and the
    >> emanations between dq/sq is mystical experience of the levels.
    >
    > You'll need to unpick that sentence a bit more before I can understand it.
    > Although part of my
    > argument is that 'the MOQ's description of experience' is basically
    > Kantian.
    >
    >> In The Edge
    >> of Chaos Mark M uses the term 'sweet spot'. For me this is a description
    >> of
    >> the emanation of coherence between sq and sq.
    >
    > I agree that it was a useful essay but I can't see the relevance to this
    > thread.
    >
    >> joe: it is true that No man is an island! IMO the academic community has
    >> not
    >> fully explored the MOQ so what it says about Schleiermacher is
    >> irrelevant.
    >
    > That's a non sequitur. Surely the argument is that because academia hasn't
    > explored the MoQ, what it
    > says about the MOQ is irrelevant. Whereas, because they have explored Kant
    > and Schleiermacher, they
    > should be listened to on them. And if I am right in saying that the MoQ
    > parallels Schleiermacher,
    > then some of their criticisms will correspondingly apply. Make sense?
    >
    >> A
    >> description of a 'direct borrowing' by Pirsig from Schleiermacher would
    >> not
    >> return value for value.
    >
    > Well, that's not what I was arguing for. The issue is the conceptual
    > shape - see above.
    >
    > Thanks for taking the time to read it.
    >
    > Sam
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 19:52:54 GMT