I’ve been away for a couple of months, so I missed most of the discussions
on moq, but was able to read Lila’s Child on my journey.
Has Lila’s Child been discussed on moq?
Marc
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]Namens Thracian Bard
Verzonden: dinsdag 10 april 2001 5:41
Aan: moq_discuss@moq.org
Onderwerp: MD metaphorically aware
Dear Elephant, I must commend you on a truly clever response. As I write
this I will try to avoid the various logic traps planted therein, but I fear
that I may fall into one. Well, here goes;
Elephant writes:
Bard. About those ancient traditions. The greeks were a diverse and
inventive bunch, so practically any tradition you can think of is an ancient
one. The precise forbear of the theory you just expounded is Anaxagoras:
the theory of intermixture. This can be expressed as that a minute part of
butter is honey, and that a minute part of honey is butter. OK. But what's
the attraction? What's the quality in such a view? How does it help me
prepare a tasty breakfast?
Another thing about Anaxagoras: he said that everything is [mixed up]
together, *except* for mind [nous]. I would guess that if you go and ferret
his reasons for thinking that mind is different, you may be interested and
surprised.
Oh - and on the
hamlet-and-laurence-olivier-as-distinct-awarenesses-in-the-same-skin-togethe
r-is-ok-because-of-quantum-mechanics-argument: "really?". You *really*
think that Quantum Mechanics requires one to project the behaviour of quarks
onto both consciousnesses and medium scale molecular structures such as
human bodies?
Before I respond, allow me to make a few observations. Your reference to
Anaxagorus is right on! However, as one who does not believe in
coincidences, I am convinced that it is no coincidence that Anaxagorus and
Lao Tze were contemporaries as their philosophies, although separated by
culture and thousands of miles, are nearly identical. It is apparent to me
that the Tao of which Lao Tze speaks IS, in fact the "Nous" of which
Anaxagorus waxes profoundly. And for that reason, the "Nous" refers not to
an individual's mind, but to a collective mind. It is not certain, although
many of us profess so, that we each really have any individual minds. And,
in that lies a trap. If we have no individual minds, then you might argue
that we have no individual awareness, and therefore, neither do the atoms of
which we speak. However, I would suggest that we and atoms are both
individually and collectively aware, but that atoms tend to be more
consistent in their choices because they are just a bit smarter than the
human organisms who discuss whether atoms are aware, in that atoms seem to
want to do what is in the best interest of the collective "Nous" rather than
be swayed by individual desires that have little concern for the effect on
the satisfaction of the collective organism (e.g: industry prizes profit
over the adverse effects of pollution).
Which leads me to the Hamlet/actor paradox:
Who says there is more than one consciousness? Maybe we all share the same
one. And I prefer to call THAT consciousness by its name, "NOUS."
Always a pleasure to share views!
The Bard
p.s. Combining the two threads seems right!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:14 BST