Being new to the forum, I offer apologies if the following seems like
"covered ground", but the current mood moves me to offer some thoughts
and I hope you'll be receptive to them.
I see a vibrant, healthy debate going on with some indications that
there are bruised egos and frustrations lurking at the edges. I see
several messages expressing the sentiment that perhaps it's time to
leave the forum and fly solo.
This troubles me. With respect to the obvious and abundant intellect on
display in the forum, I feel moved to offer some thoughts in the mood of
reconciliation and synthesis that I personally find most dramatically
permeates the MOQ.
I think some are holding onto the idea that MOQ represents Truth instead
of one man's attempt at a rational (SOM) signpost of a Deeper
Fundamental Reality.
Metaphysics is a language game that cannot escape being recreational
intellectualism, IMO. Sure, it may be entertaining and may give us the
means of exploding useless rationalizations (patterns) and choosing more
useful rationalizations, but that doesn't mean it is Truth or Reality
any more than the Shadows on the Cave Wall.
Any attempts at formalizing the MOQ, IMO, smacks of adopting a rigid
static pattern that is less and less indicative of the Dynamic.
Obviously we are relegated to the Shadows if we wish to discuss it since
all communication available to us is language bound. That's not to say
it's without merit or usefulness. Rather, once it begins to divide us
into dogmatic camps or cause frustration and antagonism, THEN it's
usefulness should be questioned.
The Map/Territory metaphor, as I see it, is a pragmatists approach. It
says that since we can only discuss the SQ, all discussion is
meaningless. We rationalize the discussion by attempting to establish a
SQ that we find 'useful'. We measure usefulness by using the
Map/Territory metaphor, i.e. how much of experience does our SQ
describe/predict with apparent accuracy.
But herein lies a Dogma trap. Experience is closely tied to the
subjective aspect of reality (little 'r'). Imagine a phenomenon that
has several witnesses. Each witness may have a completely different
experience because each measure the phenomenon with a different
instrument. Although each witness may have practically identical senses
(20/20 vision, similar faculty for hearing, smell, etc), the processing
engine for the data taken from the phenomenon is different. The data is
filtered by SQ patterns of the witness.
I'm reminded of the characters Jules and Vincent in the film Pulp
Fiction. Both witness the phenomenon of being shot at from point blank
range and not being struck by a bullet. The phenomenon is common to
them, the experience taken is not. To Jules it is a miracle (Divine
Intervention), to Vincent it is Coincidence/Luck. Each witness receives
data from the phenomenon colored by the SQ that they currently accept
for themselves. Jules is open to spiritual data, his SQ is not rigid in
that respect and he applies meaning behind the data. Vincent's SQ is
rigid and does not perceive meaning or spiritual data (or different
spiritual data that allows for a Chaotic Universe without Benevolent
Deity). Common phenomenon, different experience.
I use the term Dogma Trap because someone will surely say that one
experience is "better" than the other, or more "true", or that one has
"higher quality". Any such interpretation is purely Egotistical, IMO. To
imply that any SQ has Universality over Experience is to assume that
Experience is Universal. It's Dogmatic.
I said MOQ was a signpost of a Deeper Fundamental Reality. It's not the
Deeper Fundamental Reality itself. For many of us, the MOQ was something
that exploded previous patterns of thinking that didn't work for us, or
left us wanting. It points to the Conceptually Unknown. It suggests
Meaning (or at least a Vector) to existence. What it does NOT offer is a
path (or epistemology).
We grasp at the Conceptually Unknown through science, religion, and art
(and perhaps others) and the conclusions we reach through these are all
equally valid, equally "true". To suggest that one has precedence over
another is to suggest Universality of Experience or that Information
exists outside of an Information Processing Engine. Both are Egotistical
in my view. Perception is reality (little 'r'), but Reality is
unknowable. Perhaps saying that Reality is Doable captures the flavor
more (for me anyway).
In short, can't we all just.....get along!?! Seriously, though. Anyone
sharing experience should be welcomed. Any effectively communicated
experience should be treated with equal respect. All paths should be
considered, and chosen paths should be equally considered as valuable,
regardless of whether or not they are shared paths. An attitude of "my
shadow on the cave wall is better than your shadow on the cave wall" is
sad commentary on us all.
Let the Hegelian Dialectic rage on!!
With hope,
-Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of marco
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 1:41 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Stuck with Map/Territory?
Hi Platt, Wim, Scott,
a quick jump in, I'm short of time....
I agree with Scott:
> I don't deny map-making. What I deny is that there
> is any mappable reality that is not itself another map
[.]
> Perception has more in common with
> understanding a language than with being a mirror.
It has always been my convincement that mapping the territory is more
than a metaphor. And it is not merely intellectual.
Biology maps the inorganic level: bacteria "know" oxygen. Biology maps
also biology: bacteria know my body and my body knows bacteria. That
is: life is (also) mapping; and the mapped territory is both the
inorganic level and the biological level. In short life is a map that
becomes territory for life itself.
Society maps the inorganic level: a village needs water and has rituals
or laws for its treatment. It maps also biology as it can tell a
possible member (a man) from another animal (a lion): "hey man, join
us! We'll help you surviving and you will work for us". And it maps
society as well: "Those communists are our enemies!" . In short:
Culture is a map of the inorganic+biological+social levels.
And in the end the same goes for the intellectual level. It maps water
(H2O); it maps biology (DNA); it maps cultures (anthropology); and it
maps other intellectual maps... gravitation is a map; using this map as
territory, we can create another map: for example the theory of the
expansion of universe, that depends upon the theory of gravitation.
In few words, at any level the map becomes the territory. And at any
level we observe a typical skill of mapping the map itself.
(from this point of view, self-awareness is not that huge mystery...)
Ciao,
Marco
Marco
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
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST