From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 21:40:38 BST
David --
> What I have to say here seems compatible with the MOQ
> and explores something more deeply than the MOQ does
> but I think it is implied by the MOQ as I say.
> The MOQ if a worthy change to subject-object metaphysics
> and its materialist off-shoot will need exploring in many directions.
What DO you have to say here, David? I'm at a loss to figure it out.
You said:
> Absence is very important.
> Without absence we could not recognise the world
> and other people and that the world is bounded.
You say that this "absence" was not "nothingness? If not the boundaries
that define particular objects and events in space/time, then what is it?
You also refer to an experienced "quality that has been withdrawn." Was
that the quality illustrated by your analogy of a ball rolling under the
chair? Is that quality "absenting" itself? I don't understand your
rhetoric here.
> I might claim that nothingness is only possible for that form of
> experience that is not the whole/One, and perhaps the One
> does not really become experienced prior to the differentiation
> into the many.
Nothingness "defines" our experience of things by separating them from each
other, thus structuring a differentiated world. It also separates
subjective awareness from the objects of experience, the primary division of
reality (otherwise known as the mind/matter duality). If your "absence" is
something else, it isn't obvious to me.
I had said:
> Things are experienced as arising from and returning to nothingness.
> Such is the illusion we all call the "real" world. Obviously they are
> supported by a primary source that transcends this coming and going.
> Why illusion?
> Patterns/beings just come and go, this is the reality of our
> experience.No need to under value it.
Insofar as physical reality is experienced as dimensional and pluralistic,
it
is not ultimate reality -- Absolute Essence. Those who understand this
concept tend to describe man's "intellectually structured" world as
"illusionary", although I don't insist on this term. Naturally, the world
of experience is important to us and is the basis of all our activities in
the life-experience.
David, since I seem to be having some difficulty getting your point, could
you explain, without resorting to allegories, what precisely you would like
the MoQ to change. If there's a new theory behind your statements, let's
hear it. Otherwise, all I'm hearing is a disgruntled participant with an
alternative view that he alludes to by innuendo.
Appreciate your comments, David.
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 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 22:05:27 BST