From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 17:54:54 BST
Hi all
Something Wim said about simplified and sophisticated
versions of the MoQ chimed with something I have read
by Barfield. To supplement my grapplings with
definitions in the ‘living being’ thread I thought I’d
express a few of my thoughts. You see, I think the
problems I’m having with the MoQ at the moment are a
good example of ‘double-think’. Double-think,
according to Barfield, is when we accept one version
of reality in principle but live in another.
In this context, you can see how we may accept the MoQ
in principle but live in a SOM reality.
To explain this further it may be useful to consider a
couple more of Barfield’s ideas. Barfield
distinguishes thinking into 3 types.
The first is the type of thinking of which we are
almost completely unaware, the thinking that, along
with perception, effectively constructs our reality in
terms of the representations that make up our familiar
world. This type of thinking includes both the
interpretation of sensation into ‘things’ and provides
the context in which we experience the relative
meaning of the ‘things’ to our immediate situation. To
experience this in action, when you read this
sentence, try to see it as black patterns on a white
screen without seeing ‘words’ and when you do look at
the words try not to ‘grasp the meaning’. Barfield
calls this type of thinking ‘figuration’. Our
figuration is our reality. If your figuration changes,
so does your reality.
The second is the type of thinking which is about the
content of the first type. In other words it is the
thinking ‘about’ things, but not necessarily things in
our immediate perception, it also covers reflective
thinking. Barfield calls this ‘alpha-thinking’.
The third is the type of thinking about the act or
process of thinking itself, about perception and about
the ‘nature’ of things. An example of this is
metaphysics. Barfield calls this ‘beta-thinking’.
The three types of thinking are not clearly separated
in our daily lives. Indeed Barfield sees that one kind
of thinking can drift into another without any
awareness of the ‘thinker’.
Now, as I see it, for those of us living in the
western world (or at the very least for me) figuration
is dominated by SOM. The concepts we subconsciously
interpret sensation with come from our culture,
language and general assumptions about reality which
are derived from SOM. For most people, I would say
that their alpha-thinking and beta-thinking is also
dominated by SOM.
It could be argued that our (meaning the posters to
this forum) beta-thinking is at least in some degree,
dominated by MoQ. Some of you may claim that your
‘alpha-thinking’, i.e. the way you naturally think and
reflect ‘about’ things is also dominated by MoQ. But
would you agree that only the complete and fundamental
acceptance of the MoQ would entail that your
figuration was also dominated by the MoQ? That’s how I
see it. To me, my ‘figuration’ is still dominated by
SOM.
So although I may accept the idea of a rock being a
static pattern of inorganic Quality, I still ‘see’ it
primarily as an ‘object’ and as such, I still feel
like a ‘subject’. And if a child asked me what a rock
was, I would not describe it as an inorganic pattern
of value. I see myself as a ‘living being’ along with
my wife, friends, family, and every other human being,
plant and animal on the earth.
In other words, I am engaged in what Barfield calls
‘double-think’. I am living comfortably in a reality
of subjects and objects whilst intellectually grasping
a completely different reality. To me, this is why I
and maybe others on the forum are having difficulty
‘really’ understanding the MoQ. Particularly with the
correlation of SOM concepts with MoQ concepts. To
'really' understand the MoQ, I would argue, requires
or perhaps results from the changing of your
figuration. It no longer provides an explanation for
your experience, it is your experience.
I don’t know if it’s possible to deliberately and
permanently change your ‘figuration’, I suspect it is.
Furthermore, I don’t know if it is wholly desirable,
what are the ontological implications?
My general feeling right now is that it is a gradual
thing and that, using Barfield terms, maybe the MoQ
needs to start as beta-thinking and slowly move across
into alpha-thinking and begin to seep into figuration
completely over the next few hundred years.
Anyway, just thought I’d let you know what I was
double-thinking about. I hope it conveys something to
you.
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
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 May 01 2003 - 17:55:31 BST