This message was lost in the first transmission, hope it makes it
this time and that it is still relevant.
John Aaron and MOQ Foci.
It looks like Jonh's post of 17 February is a reply to Nishant
Taneja's of the15th. I am not sure but will just address John here
and study Nishant's a little bit more. It was awfully deep :).
John wrote:
> If one thing can never actually view itself, due to continuity in
> space and time, how then are any assumptions or theories made about
> anything? E.g. The state of nature never actually existed, but it is
> a fundamental tool in determining many characteristic in a wide range
> of studies. By removing certain accepts of one thing a solution or
> best coarse of action can be determined. So it is not that science is
> wrong or religion is useless, but rather incomplete.
This looks related to PhÊdrus of ZMM's insight about the little
figure sifting sand, taking one handful out of the sea and calling it
reality...etc, and is really the starting point of the quality argument
with the purpose of bringing the SOMists to their senses, but it's
unnecessary to bring it up AFTER the quality transformation is
understood.
> Each and every
> idea constructed in the human mind is a direct result of insufficient
> information. Humans knowing this inadequacy developed a way of
> determining idea by relying on mirror-image. In order to see your own
> eye you must look at the eye as it exists outside of your immediate
> perception and view it in external reflection. I can see my own eye
> but not through my eye rather through an image of the eyes separate
> from its system. But the eye does not lose its purpose simply because
> it is out of its element. It simply remains incomplete. So the ÏIÓ
> could then be separated and have an idea of an idea, but it remains
> lacking. The first is the idea of the eye on its own, and the second
> as the eye with purpose and function in a system. One actually does
> taste the food by its use of the tongue and if one did not try and
> taste the tongue the sensory date would remain lost, and therefore no
> taste would exist. Food has taste not due to the make-up of itself,
> but the make-up of ability to taste.
I don't disagree at all, but the example of food having no taste
has no bearing on the quality idea - only on SOM because it
springs from SOM and is known as the empiricist argument
crowned by Imanuel Kant. Out there are nothing but quantities:
light frequencies, air wave frequencies, molecular
configurations...etc, while in here these impacts upon
our senses are transformed into vision, sound, taste or smell
...and so on. The two realms are forever divided.......or united as
you describe it below, but the such mystical visions have noe
bearing upon everyday life: the subjective and the objective are
worlds apart......seen from the SOM point of view.
> We exist then not to think about
> the subject, but to think about thinking about the subject.
> Objectivity is then not contained in subjectivity or the inverse. They
> are both contained in the idea of each. Yes one cannot be without the
> other, or it could, but would remain incomplete. To complete
> objectivity and subjectivity it is essential to think about them.
> Matter is mind, and mind is matter, but they remain dormant until they
> are thought about. And in thinking about the thought of each paves
> the way for the human conscience and existence period.
This is what the MOQ sets out to repair - not by finding any
mystical bridge that spans the mind/matter chasm but by doing
away with the S/O division completely. There is no mind and
matter in the first place, and thereby no mind/matter
problem! There are only VALUE of which four static levels are
recognized.
The first static inorganic pattern level might "look" like matter, but
has nothing to do with SOM's substance. Most important though,
the intellectual level has nothing to do with SOM's mind . To return
to the food/taste example. In the MOQ the riddle of how the
objective food turns into subjective experience vanishes. The food
is inorganic value while (the ability of) turning that into sensation is
biological value (*see below). There is no identity attached to it, no
"I" that has to taste the taste. A maggot devouring a carcass is as
much (following) biological value as a feinsmecker at a table.
[* Further up the Q-ladder the value of turning sensation into
emotion is social value, and turning emotion into reason is
intellectual value. This interaction-sensation-emotion-reason
sequence is not found in LILA - it's all my making - but it
follows naturally of the Q premises.....IMHO]
Thanks for your attention.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST