Hi everyone.
The respective persons will know who wrote what in the below.
PS for Clarke.
> > > > > An animal with no knowledge of life and death is immortal. So
> > > > > if i had no knowledge of life or death would i be immortal?
> > > >
> > > > I know it sounds outrageous, but the MoQ IS outrageous .
> > >
> > >Plants have no knowledge of life and death, and can't they live
> > >forever with proper nourishment?
> >
> > Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Bo
> > did
> not
> > mean this literally. When he said an animal with no knowledge of
> > life or death is immortal, it means that since the animal does not
> > know it's going to die, it is the same for it as being immortal. One
> > day the creature will not wake up, because it's dead, but it won't
> > ever know that, because it's dead. If it is killed sometime, it will
> > no doubt experience some sensation from the various things
> > happening, but many will be unfamiliar as it has never died before,
> > and it won't know that it won't be alive in a few minutes.
> >
> > At least, that was my take on the statement...
>
>
> Not to be rude, but what's your point? First you say the animal is
> immortal, then you go on to say it's not.
>
>
> > > > > imagine
> > > > > i was abandoned as a child on a desert island with a lifetimes
> > > > >
> supply
> > > > > of rations etc but had no schooling whatsoever, couldn't talk
> > > > > and
> had
> > > > > not encountered death)?
> > > >
> > > > An interesting "thought experiment". There are a few known cases
> > > > of children raised among animals and they were said to behave
> > > > like animals; no language and thereby no Intellect that "knew
> > > > that objectively...etc."
> > >
> > >No language? As far as I know many animals have some rudimentary
> language.
> > >As far as the death part.. I'll have to look that up in Lila again
No-one will find anything about "immortality of animals" in LILA,
this is my own deductions, and said like this - out of the blue - it's
just folly, we KNOW that all living things die sooner or later, let me
just try to elaborate the reasoning behind this claim.
There is a passage in ZAMM where it's talk about laws of nature
and P. claims that there was no gravity before Newton! (I don't have
the book here and can give you the page number). By this he
means that "data" - observations (in this case that things fall to the
ground) - can be explained in infinite ways. The insight (that there
is an infinity of explanations to one given fact) was what made the
young student Phaedrus quit school. The boy with such an
extraordinary intellect was shocked to find that none had
discovered this gaping hole in reality.
This insight is what surfaces again in the said laws-of-nature talk
later in the story. I don't have the book with me here, but he goes
on to say something like this: The modern mind balks at this (no
"gravity" before Newton) and goes on thinking that gravity was there
for Newton to discover. ...etc. I don't know if this brings any
understanding, but the "infinity" insight says that there is no finite
truth, and Phaedrus reeling. It aught to shock us all, but luckily
most people have some safety device that prevents following an
idea to its conclusion.
An aside here before I forget my point. Regarding the immortality
question it means that the "explanation of reality" at the animal
level which does not include language and its abstract "death",
therefore include no death. Just as there was no gravity before
Einstein it was no death before language. OK this is still
outrageous, but if you understand it the reasoning its watertight.
Now, it may sound as contradicting myself, but we can't accept
that there is no truth - science, our whole civilization build on it -
it's intolerable, what do we do? As I understand Eastern philosophy
- Zen Buddhism - this notion of a mere succession of realities is its
very root, but turning mystics aren't our wont and P who wrote LILA
knew that you don't jump on a soap box and say such things, you
create a philosophy. And this is what he has done, this time one
that doesn't build on Western tradition - nor directly on Eastern
either but one that RECONCILES THE EAST AND THE WEST.
The various static levels are "explanations" of existence, and the
top level - Intellect - is the Subject/Object Explanation where truth
(objectivity) and its counterpoint beliefs (subjectivity) are divided.
This is an enormous value increase, it started by giving us
knowledge of life and death/good and evil, went on and on to give
us our modern world - politically and technically, but even if being
the top "explanation" it isn't the final one.
I could go on and on about the new vista that the MoQ opens up
for, but this is too much already.
Bo
PS for Clarke.
The above was made ready for posting when your last post arrived,
but no "ire" from this old fool, your observations was most deeply
appreciated. Speaking about the "internationalism" of the MoQ
(discussion) an American dominance is to be expected, but it
seems that Scandinavian and The Netherlands are fertile grounds -
so is Israel, at least they have the staunchest participant in
Jonathan. What I should have liked was the appearance of a real
Zen master from Japan or a Buddhist theorician (is that a word?),
but perhaps the Eastern Sage is a Western dream; they are as
bewildered as we are.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:25 BST