Re: MD Time

From: ian glendinning (
Date: Fri May 27 2005 - 02:53:10 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD A Modern Brujo"


    If I'm going to happy spending my life as a poor deluded modernist,
    you're really going have to explain "modernist" in simple terms ....
    but I think we're closer than might appear.

    I may think "intellect" has arisen (evolved in my case) from a world
    without it, but I didn't mention consciousness. As I've said many
    times, I do in fact believe, there is something physical behind
    conciousness, that is not yet understood.

    Your (1) - yes, with you on these triplets.
    Your (2) - I did just say in a parallel thread - the 4D-Spacetime of
    "pop-science" is clearly only a convenient metaphor, but not much like
    reality it turns out.
    Your (3) - the "modern" language is losing me ... but you end up with
    what is now mystical is the normal of the future. I agree. Mystical =

    The "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" I prefer to think of the
    word aesthetic here as simply to draw attention away from objective /
    empirical aspects of experience - obviously aesthetics as we would
    know it, has arisen from human behaviour post-experience, but I don't
    believe that's what Northrop was talking about.

    What I can or cannot say about form and formlessness - I've seen that
    tetralemma before, naturally. The problem is you get back to
    fundamental liguistic problems, and I can hardly say anything. I did
    in fact say "aspects of form and formlessness" not that it existed as
    both, but we're getting into lingusitic knots.


    On 5/27/05, Scott Roberts <> wrote:
    > Ian,
    > Scott said
    > The phrase "intellectual convenience" presupposes the modernist, nominalist
    > point of view to which I object ... The word for [creating value-based
    > distinctions] is intellect.
    > Ian said:
    > Not sure why you say modernist, but nominalist yes - it's about
    > taxonomy - choosing to name some sub-set of everything. Where you
    > reject it - I say use with caution (cos it's never black and white).
    > But, if I've summarised you correctly in [..] above, then we agree
    > about what intellect is.
    > Scott:
    > Well, here we are at a 'tis/'taint impasse, namely, it appears that you hold
    > with the modernist belief that consciousness and intellect emerged from a
    > universe without them, while I reject that. Here, again, are my reasons for
    > rejecting it:
    > 1. The irreducibility of a semiotic event (necessarily ternary: sign,
    > interpretant, and referent) to some combination of non-semiotic events
    > (binary, e.g., force acting on a particle).
    > 2. That the experience of "now" is extended in space and time, and there is
    > no way that a fundamentally spatiotemporal universe could produce such an
    > extended experience, given the separation in space and/or time of each
    > fundamental event from every other event. Hence, given that we already know
    > that color, boundaries, tones, touch are produced in the perceptive act, it
    > makes sense to include space and time as also produced in the perceptive
    > act. Hence, the fundamental level is eternal (non-spatiotemporal), which
    > makes the modernist view untenable.
    > 3. (1) and (2) are, in themselves, not proofs, but just arguments or
    > intuitions. However, in the experience of mystics (e.g., Plotinus, Rudolf
    > Steiner, Franklin Merrell-Wollf), they are givens, not arguments. Add to
    > this Barfield's arguments that the modernist consciousness is something that
    > is evidentially different from pre-modern consciousness (original
    > participation), and that for the pre-modern consciousness, the Intellect
    > behind the wordly appearances was experienced, then one can conclude that
    > modern consciousness is a stage toward further development, so what is now
    > called mystical becomes normal (final participation).
    > So those are my reasons. Unless you can counter them, I'll stick to them,
    > and consider your position that of a poor deluded modernist.
    > Ian said:
    > Not sure how we got from intellect to intelligent creation. The
    > intellect (of intelligent participants in the world) is simply
    > classifying the messy world (out there) for pragmatic reasons - to
    > live life - creatively.
    > Scott:
    > I would say we get from creativity to intellect (and value and awareness).
    > Intellect creates new forms as well as classifying existing forms. You
    > apparently believe in something like Northorp's "undifferentiated aesthetic
    > continuum" that exists prior to classification. I would argue that that is a
    > contradiction in terms, in that there is no aesthetic without
    > differentiation.
    > Ian said:
    > In the DQ (formless) / sq (form) split you quote
    > "form is not other than formlessness, formlessness is not other than form."
    > I say - is / is not - this is the doubt in my shades of grey. Things
    > have form and formless aspects, but apart from intellectual
    > constructions, no one thing is entirely one or the other.
    > If you think LCI is a better model than MoQ - then I'd better shut up
    > for a bit and read about it.
    > Scott:
    > Just for example, the LCI, recall, is a rephrasing of the age-old Buddhist
    > tetralemma, which you violate above. It would go:
    > One cannot say it (whatever) is form
    > One cannot say it is formless
    > One cannot say it is form and formless
    > One cannot say it is neither form nor formless.
    > So when you say "Things have form and formless aspects" you are violating
    > the third horn of the tetralemma.
    > Ian said:
    > (Although I espouse classification - I'm very wary of the destructive
    > power of the analytic knife - things fall apart in your hands under
    > analysis. I prefer to be synthetic rather than analytic - to build
    > something better, from the best bits of what we already have - not
    > discard or destroy something because it's not 100% perfect to start
    > with - ie I hope I'm a constructive pragmatist - like evolution
    > itself.)
    > Scott:
    > Right: intellect is creative. Hence the MOQ is wrong to say that intellect
    > merely "responds" to DQ. As creativity it *is* DQ/SQ.
    > - Scott
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 27 2005 - 02:58:37 BST