Focusers,
"My dear Watson, when all other possibilities have been exhausted,
whatever possibility remains , however absurd, must be the truth."
Sir Arther Conan Doyle
MOQ interpretation :
When all the truths have been exhausted, whatever remains, however
absurd , must be the Good.
This months topic is about the basic starting point of MOQ at
the fundamental split of Quality into DQ and SQ. As i under-
stand it, the proposal now is that Reality=Quality=Morality
is the starting premises of this Metaphysics and Quality is
the undefinable everything.
If it is everything, then we as infinitesimally small beings of
an apperently infinite whole can never KNOW "everything" and
far less say anything about everything.
So in order to study everything, we break it into parts that
ideally should be true counterparts of each other, that is,
opposing as well as complimenting each other.
It must be understood that whichever way it is split, is not
a perfect way that can lead to a complete understanding,
(due to conceptual and linguistic factors ) but at best a
functional understanding , and just how functionally useful
it is will depend also upon individual motivational factors,
experiences and purposes.
It also must be understood that if a whole is undefinable
and is split then at least one component of the split also
must neccessarily be undefinable.
Thus if Quality is split into DQ and SQ, and if SQ is defined
as static patterns of value, then DQ must be the undefinable
counterpart , that is DQ can NEVER truly be expressed
in any static (or sensory) form because as soon as we do so ,
it becomes by definition - static quality . Even the words
" Dynamic Quality" are therefore only static patterns and only
at best SYMBOLISING a true counterpart of static quality.
It is therefore clear that DQ can NEVER be verified
scientifically , or even sensed by our sensory systems or
even proven that there is anything like it at all and
thus can NEVER be AGREED UPON and must therefore remain
in the exclusive domain of personal experience. DQ can
at best be realised personally by direct experience
or in a very limited manner by the method of exclusion
by the rigorous analysis of static patterns.
Why take all the trouble, is what we need to ask ourselves.
ie what is the need for Metaphysics ?
To start with, lets see what we can say about Reality and
why we need Metaphysics to study it.
What is " Reality "? The only thing that anyone can say for
SURE is that Reality (or that which is real) is whatever is
being experienced or percieved at this very moment by the
awareness of that being.
The moment someone says anything ABOUT one's ongoing
experience, it is only a description of that experience - not
the experience itself. Thus when we discuss or analyse Reality
we can only do so in parts because language can only describe
or analyse experience by parts. The whole of an experience
undifferentiated can at best be only described by narrating
each and every detail as it happened without opinion, analysis,
meanings, conclusions etc , which by itself is an implausible
task particularly so if the experience is an abstraction, a
synthesis experience, or what may be termed as mystical or
trancendental, that is , detached from the sensory systems,
and normally operating static patterns ( although most of
our experiences are functions of or related to sensory
based static patterns.)
For example if Eliot says "What are the roots that clutch,
what branches grow out of this stony rubbish? Son of Man,
you cannot say or guess, for you know only a heap of broken
images..." these sentences can trigger a very diverse range
of feelings in different beings. Someone could well respond
"what utter nonsense", whereas someone else could feel
a deep anguish on reading these words, whereas what is the
precise experience that led Eliot to write these is
impossible to know.
Therefore it is impossible to recreate the same experience
through language in another being , whereby the terms used
in this language themselves have underlying meanings which
are interpreted and evaluated differently by different people.
THE ONLY REALITY THEREFORE IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE REALITY
OF OUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.
And it is also not desirable that the SAME experience be
neccessarily recreated in another being for what would be
the purpose of that? If every being were to share and agree
upon the same experiences , then all of life would soon turn
into a robot like existence of clones of one dominant being/s
and there would be no diversity or creativity left any more.
(this process incidentally is very much progressing in
this world )
[ The word "nature" here represents the totality of life and
its support resources within the world in which we live]
The inherent purpose of all life in the form of distinct
beings is that every individual being is a unique expression
of the nature of the world in which the being exists, but
at the same time is also inseperably interconnected with the
rest of the nature of the world. This interconnectivity is
not only in terms of shared physical resources but also
in other undefinable ways that can be partly known through
experience only.
Nature thrives in diversity and it is diversity that
maximises creativity, particularly so in advanced life
forms like human beings. But diversity also leads to
conflict, and it is here that the question of morals
arises. Even if there were UNLIMITED resources available,
there is no guarantee that there would be no conflict.
Whereas every individual has the Right to explore and
express the potential provided by the nature that gives
it being, it also therefore rests on the individual that
in the process of doing so, does not thereby step on the
toes of other fellow beings or infringe upon their similar
Rights. This simple rule of nature is the most difficult
to understand or accept by "intellegent" beings who by
virtue of their assumed superior intellegence feel that
the rest of all life should be subservient and slaves
to their dictats so that they receive the neccessary
cooperation for the sake of evolution into higher and
higher intellegence.
Unless this basic requirement of coexistence between
diverse beings sharing the same world is fulfilled,
the situation sooner or later gets out of control to
the point of no return where the whole world is
eventually destroyed. That this destruction becomes
almost inevitable is compounded by the fact that hardly
anyone is even willing to accept this as a Real possibility
and even if they do so, have lost the "Power"to act,fearful
that their daily dose of luxury and entertainment is affected
or gets curtailed in any way. Almost everyone becomes a part
or a sub-robot of a gigantic robot that cannot be stopped,
grows larger and larger...
Is this the fate of every planet on which intellegent life
evolves ? Does it always end up in smoke ?
Or is there a way out, a Metaphysics that can convince
"intellegence" about the outcome of its actions ? Has the "power"
to act been dissipated or lost irretrieveably ? Do we even care
anymore?
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST