From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 20:09:40 BST
Hello Ham,
Thanks for disagreeing with me again, forcing me to rethink my
thoughts.
You wrote:
As I see it, we agree on the following assertions:
<snip>
> There is no such thing as substance.
But you disagree:
I have a problem with this one, however:
> Even without a single living creature, the process of valuing
> existed. Awareness may involve valuing on an intellectual
> level, but valuing as such, by Pirsig's words, takes place
> on all levels. Pre-intellecutal existence, so to say.
This throws a monkey-wrench into our discussion. You are reciting the
official MoQ doctrine which I reject, since to me "intellect" is not a
level
but a faculty of the human individual. What you're now spouting is the
"rocks experiencing rocks" notion of Matt, DMB, et al.
Me:
Rocks do not rexperience rocks. A rock is an intellectual concept.
Without humans the concept rock would not exist, without animals also
it would not be seen, smelled or felt.
But why doesn't the rock fall apart into rock-molecules, why do the
rock-molecules not fall apart into rock atoms?
And, even more important, when there is no substance, what's the rock
made up off?
Back on 9/29 I said:
> I think we're pretty far in reaching positive consensus. As for the
> value-part of it. I think that word becomes meaningless in relation
to
> Essence. Or to speak in MoQ terms: value is an attribute of SQ not of
> DQ. Value you'll find in existence not in Essence.
You now say:
If Value is an attribute of SQ not DQ, and is found in existence
rather than
in Essence, it requires "awareness", which as you say "is responsible
for
the subject/object division." You cannot have a subject/object division
without a subject. Patterns or not, a rock is not a subject but an
object.
Me:
For you it's an object, an other, like your body is an object, an
other. That's because the 'you' that you identify as 'I' is your
non-bodily self. To me that's an other, like your body but I have no
direct means of experiencing 'you'. I can only experience everything
that is also other to you.
So 'you' value being in your body, so much even that in day to day
events you very much identify with your body. And you experience other
body's, or rather, your body experiences other body's through its
senses. You identify so much that you'd say you experience them. All
you really experience is the chemo in your brain.
So what's experiencing? What's valueing? Stuff relating to other
stuff... but there's no substantial stuff, because, you agreed, there
is no substance. So basically there's no evidence that the rock is made
up of different things then 'you' (your non-bodily self). But the rock
has no senses and has no brain, that's obvious.
You continue:
Even the MoQ concedes this in the sense that experience divides (hence
"creates") all reality. So, unless you want to argue for an OOM
philosophy,
inert objects cannot realize or experience Value.
Me:
But I agree to that MoQ premises. I do not agree to your mind/matter
dualism.
Me earlier:
> Regarding the SOM reference, I guess this is what Bo means when he
> states that the intellectual level is SOM. Any thought or idea comes
> from a subject, regarding itself as such.
You:
What is "a subject regarding itself as such"? If this is Bo's
reference to
individual "self-awareness", I'm with him. If he's talking about an
idea
regarding itself, ("rock" as an "idea", for example), I'm lost.
Me:
The rock is an object because it's created as such by our intellect.
'I' experience the rock because 'I' is the intellectual construct of
me. Hence the intellect creates, by conceptualizing reality, an S/O
division.
You
Yes. I'm not a practitioner of "The Middle Way", nor are most of the
MoQ
people I talk to. So I don't see Buddhistic enlightenment as a likely
future for the MoQ.
Me:
It doesn't have to be, it's one approach that I find inadequate for me
personally because at this moment I'm to determined to describe the
'big knowledge' in 'small knowledge' (Buddhist way of saying,
describing the essential truth in an existential way, or so I think)
You:
This is not to question the value of that approach;
however, an important part of my own philosophy is that we're here for
a
purpose, and it is very much concerned with how we deal with our
physical
reality.
Me:
And I see a lot of similarity in this.
You:
All this talk about reality being "imaginary" and of no
consequence does little to help us confront the life-experience. In my
opinion, man was not meant to dabble in mysticism and drug-induced
states of
mind.
Me:
And that's why I find the purely mystic approach not adequate for me
either.
You:
The human intellect is equipped with sufficient reason to work out all
the
answers necessary to accomplish this purpose. I don't rely on quantum
physics in searching out the truth of reality. Metaphysics is good
enough
for me.
Me:
I know, but it can give you clues, like other long dead philosophers
can. Your metaphysics will be grounded in your reality. As mine would
be in mine.
Me earlier:
> The hot-stove example is misleading, because it very much emphasizes
> that kind of valueing. Like/dislike type of valueing. My concept of
> valueing is more in the lines of X is NULL versus X = true or false.
> Once something has a value, it's known, it can be separated from
other
> things that have value.
You:
Since you place Essence in the NULL category, does this mean we can't
determine whether the Primary Source is true or false? If so, it
supports
my theory that man is free to choose to believe or not believe. I've
previously said that if proof of absolutes were accessible to man, he
would
not be a free agent. Do you accept this premise?
Me:
Yes, man is free to choose. By choice he exist, and by choice (and
only by choice) he can walk the path toward Essence.
You:
I'll give some more thought to your "existential question about
existence"
idea as it relates to pre-temporal existence. It's possible that I
have not
thought this through, and that any "gap" ascribed to existence is an
intellectual construct. This would mean that in reality (i.e., in
Essence)
there is no "before", hence to think of physical reality as "coming
into
existence" prior to its being experienced may be fallacious. (As you
can
see, I'm still struggling with this concept.)
Me:
But you've worded it correctly here in my humble opinion.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Look What The New Netscape.com Can Do!
Now you can preview dozens of stories and have the ones you select
delivered to you without ever leaving the Top Home Page. And the new
Tool Box gives you one click access to local Movie times, Maps, White
Pages and more. See for yourself at
http://netcenter.netscape.com/netcenter/
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 Oct 06 2005 - 02:31:58 BST