From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 17:36:56 GMT
Hi Scott
> [Paul:]
> I'm not sure I agree that metaphysics requires us to leave behind
> everyday affairs; I think the MOQ tries to ground metaphysics back in
> [static and Dynamic] everyday experience whilst providing a rational
> framework in which to incorporate more exceptional [Dynamic]
experience,
> such as mystic understanding. As such, I think it is important to
> distinguish between the types of intellect/mind we are discussing and
I
> think the MOQ is right to use the static/Dynamic distinction as its
> primary division to point towards non-verbal, immediately apprehended
> awareness and not have it become pinned down with limiting
definitions.
> I also think it is right to limit a static definition of intellect and
> mind - one of my biggest problems with the many different schools of
> Buddhism is the varying and confusing use of "mind" [or at least in
> western translations of Buddhism].
[Scott:]
Once one has realized that consciousness operates outside of the
spatio-temporal framework, it seems to me foolish in the extreme to
ground metaphysics in everyday experience.
[Paul:]
I did not mean that everyday experience is all there is but equally, I
think everyday experience is all too easily overlooked in metaphysics.
As said above, the MOQ uses a static/Dynamic division to try and explain
everyday (static and Dynamic) experience whilst providing a framework to
incorporate exceptional (Dynamic) experience such as mysticism.
With regards to consciousness, as said before, as time and space are
described as a (highly valuable) product of consciousness
(question-beggingly defined here as intellectual patterns) there is no
requirement for the MOQ to explain consciousness in terms of a
spatio-temporal framework. Consciousness is nevertheless an everyday
experience of value patterns verifiable by anyone.
[Scott:]
Similarly if one accepts quantum reality, and/or mysticism.
[Paul:]
Quantum reality in the MOQ resides at the static inorganic level as
patterns of subatomic preferences. Whilst the movement of subatomic
particles is not part of everyday empirical experience, as the MOQ
levels are not continuous, there is no requirement to ground the other
(more readily experienced) levels of the metaphysical system in quantum
reality.
You have a point about mysticism. The MOQ holds that static patterns of
value do not advance a mystic understanding, which is described as an
experience of unpatterned value. However, whilst I agree that a mystic
understanding often denies the validity of everyday experience, a
metaphysics that only acknowledges Dynamic, ineffable, conceptually
unknown reality, is a blank piece of paper. I have a feeling your
adoption of the L of CI offers a solution to this?
Finally, I don't think it is extremely foolish for metaphysics to
account for everyday experience which does not involve quantum
fluctuation and mystic awareness. Everyday experience includes sights,
sounds, smells, feelings, relationships, bonds, duties, customs,
problems, ideas, principles, decisions, analysis and philosophy
discussion groups. This is all part of the comprehensible static
universe which the MOQ provides a vocabulary to talk about whilst
maintaining that all of this arises from a Dynamic reality that is
always more than what is said about it.
What would a metaphysics based on the L of CI look like?
Regards
Paul
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 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 17:37:16 GMT