From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 22:27:20 BST
Hi Reinier --
I enjoy talking to you and always find your contributions valuable. It's
not easy to find people in the MD who still have their sanity!
I had stated:
>The physical world is not only diverse and differentiated, but its
>differentiation in many respects constitutes a polarized system.
You concurred:
> The differentiation and polarization are very much linked I think.
> Differentiation is useful for sake of discussion when
> polarization is not obvious (short, long, somewhere in between...)
> In fact I think for the discussion, this polarization is all we need.
> BTW, this is the TAO.
Philosophy, like other fields of investigation, needs to set the limits for
its study. I think time and space will always be finite for the intellect
because what we observe is only its finite phenomena. As Aristotle said,
it's impossible to count to infinity. We may "conceptualize" infinity in
the equations of Calculus or logical syllogisms, but we never really grasp
it.
The polarity concept is a useful analogy for defining the boundaries or
limits of existence, but it doesn't describe or structure its contents.
Similarly, defining the extremes of a particular value experience is useful
for demonstrating the range of free choice and the need for balance. I see
the value of these principles as more than just a logical way to design the
universe: they are "essential" to the freedom of man. (But then, of course,
my philosophy is anthropocentric.)
I'm aware, as you astutely pointed out, that this theory parallels the
Taoist concept of reality. But I would like to think that we don't have to
convert to Hinduism in order to gain such understanding. The approach we
need to aim for is to "get inside" reality instead of analyzing its finite
pieces as an objective otherness. (That, too, I think is Taoistic.)
Unfortunately, the MoQ does not advance that idea, so everyone has his own
interpretation of what the "broken pieces" mean and where the breaking point
occurs. But until, or unless, MoQ's followers come to see the need for a
primary source -- not just an underlying esthetic principle -- there will be
no ultimate reality for them to explain.
Frankly, I'd be willing to entertain the SOM heriarchy if it weren't for the
refusal of the Pirsig loyalists to accept either a primary source or
individual awareness. So long as they resist the idea of an immutable
creator, their analysis leads to nothing more than materialism with quality
instead of matter as its foundation. And if they can't accept man as the
locus of reality, value is nothing but a meaningless abstraction.
Anyway (sigh) -- back to the polar/non-polar analogy...
> Existence [SQ] = positive vs. negative = contrariety
> Essence [DQ] = positive=negative = unity
You commented:
> This is what I mean by saying duality includes a monism (as opposite
> to itself) but a monism does not include a duality. (I have never
literally
> said this, but tried to say it)
Well, you've said it now. And, thanks, to my intuitive flash, I'm better
able to understand what you meant. In a way, it restates the Cusan theory,
doesn't it?
In existence X is not other than X, and X is other than not X.
In Essence X is not other than either X or not X.
Restated by Reinier:
Existence = Reality perceived as a duality
Essence = Reality undivided but not other than duality(?)
Proposed by Ham:
Existence = Subjective awareness of a relational object
Essence = Reality undivided by subject and object
BTW, I see you've taken my suggestion and joined the "Intelligence Fallacy".
I'm going to sit this one out for a spell, and see how it develops. (I
haven't learned how to speak in "patterntalk".)
Best 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 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 22:50:06 BST