Hi Scott, Marco, Kevin, John B., Gary, Bo, Wim, All:
Thanks to one and all who wrote about the map/territory issue that I
feared was anti-MOQ. Here is a brief summary of what each respondent
said:
SCOTT:
Our reality is nothing but maps. "We supply all the form of what we
perceive." What's out there are not separate things but "signs we don't
currently know how to read."
MARCO:
Each level maps the level below it. Also, each level can map itself.
Example: Biological bacteria "know" inorganic oxygen. Bacteria also
know my biological body.
KEVIN:
We're able to experience only what our self-constructed maps permit us
to experience. So we should treat everyone's unique "path" as equally
valid to avoid the "Dogma Trap."
JOHN B:
No problem with using the map/territory metaphor. But the MOQ map
isn't any better than SOM because all maps, in the end, are just words
that cannot alleviate man's suffering.
GARY:
We make maps of the limited data provided by our senses. To discover
how we make maps, we should first study our sensory system.
BO:
The MOQ, like any metaphysics, is a map that resides at the
intellectual level but at a place higher than the SOM map, enabling us to
see SOM's shortcomings.
WIM:
The map/territory is a metaphysical "first cut" of Reality, as is
subject/object. "As a metaphor I don't see a problem in it, as long as
you are clear what IS the metaphysics that you want to use as context."
A couple of comments. Scott, Kevin and Marco appear to say that we
all we can ever know are maps of reality. But if that's so, logic would
demand that they must already know reality because they say it's
incapable of being mapped.
John B. argues that metaphysics, maps, and words can do nothing to
alleviate spiritual suffering. But words and maps are used by spiritual
guides to suggest activities that may help. People also seek relief in
prayer maps.
Gary takes a reductionist approach by suggesting we should examine
how the nervous system produces maps, but he doesn't say whether
the nervous system is also map or not.
Bo says the MOQ map is more encompassing and therefore better than
SOM. Good point. (Suggests to me that SOM is like a 1492 map of the
world compared to a modern MOQ map.)
Wim provided me with the best clue to solve my personal quandary. The
map/territory split is really the same as the subject/object split. The
MOQ acknowledges the split by saying maps are the social and
intellectual value patterns while territories are inorganic and biological
patterns. So long as I specify the metaphysical context of my remarks
when there's a possibility of confusion, I and my audience should be
able to understand one another.
But possibilities for misinterpretation are always present, as indeed this
post may prove. (-:
Platt
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