From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003 - 23:13:49 BST
Sorry Platt, but I just do not see where you get those distinctions you say
I seem to be making ???
On each of your points I believe I see exactly the opposite.
You said
Subject/Object view.
Humans apart from the world ?
I said no such thing.
On the contrary - I say there is no world to speak of independent of our
interaction with it, and it with us (in every sense, mental and physical)
This interaction is the quality we know.
You said
betterness is a value judgment that is immediately
apprehended by direct experience prior to "making sense."
Recognition of Quality is pre-intellectual
I say I've seen those phrases before, but I haven't a clue what distinction
your making.
I guess your words "direct experience" are analogous to my "interaction"
above.
But "immediate", "prior", "pre-" you lose me.
You said
denying that the world has no purpose
I say (I suspect you have an unintended double negative there) I do not deny
the world a purpose, I just can't imagine what that might mean, nor can I
see any reason for it to have such a purpose in order to explain anything I
need to understand about the world - so far anyway. I said "no evidence the
world needs any transcendental purpose" ie it may or may not have a
purpose - I can't see what difference it makes, so I doubt (rather than
deny) there is such a purpose.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
Sent: 28 August 2003 20:45
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD Forked tongue
Hi Ian,
> Platt you said,
> ... the obvious contradiction that the universe has no purpose.
> ... a scientist can't get out of bed in the morning without
> a purpose.
>
> My view is there is no evidence the world needs any transcendental
> purpose to be the way we understand it. There is no contracdiction
> between this view and the fact that most humans thrive on s sense of
> purpose, derived from their place in the world as they understand it and
> their view of how they can influence it (for better or worse).
You seem to making the subject/object distinction between humans and the
rest of world, as if humans were somehow looking down at a world completely
apart for them rather than the MOQ view that humans experience values that
create the static patterns we call the "world."
> Betterness is a value judgement we can make when we have someting like
> the MoQ to make sense of things. But even every cloud has a silver
> lining - that's human nature.
In the MOQ, betterness is a value judgment that is immediately
apprehended by direct experience prior to "making sense." Recognition
of Quality is pre-intellectual.
Purpose is inherent in the MOQ explanation of evolution as movement
toward Dynamic Quality.
I cannot help but wonder what is the purpose in denying that the world
has no purpose? Seems to me the purpose is to maintain the
subject/object division at all costs. Admittedly, it's hard to let go
of the basis on which Western intellect thrives.
Platt
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
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 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 00:04:46 BST