From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 20:01:16 BST
Hello everyone
>From: "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau@sbcglobal.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD DQ & emergence & consciouness
>Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:49:42 -0700
>
>
>joe: Thanks for your response!
Hi Joe
You're welcome, and thank you too!
>When I studied scholastic thought the
>question How do I know things? was answered "by abstraction". SOM a
>division
>of intentional and real existence.
>
>Now in the MOQ I ask How do I distinguish the moral levels? The suggestion
>is "by experience"! I am not satisfied.
>
>How do I distinguish the experience of the level, inorganic, from the
>level,
>organic? By experience! Experience becomes a word of many levels! It is
>like the word God! IMO 'experience' is dynamic only in the category-self
>awareness (self-creation). Can things affect me which I am not aware of?
>Yes. Is the effect the same as the things which affect me of which I am
>aware? No! One is moral. The other occurs through the autonomy of the
>moral levels.
I agree experience can be a tough word to define. What if we say
experience/Dynamic Quality like the Tao is amoral. That's how we get Mark
Maxwell's Tao bombers and reports of Japanese prisoners of war sitting in
zazen while awaiting war crime tribunals. There's no need for a mysterious
"dark side" of the Tao. It is our own intellectualization that labels our
experience good and evil.
>
>I am and I have inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual experiences.
>It
>would be a shame not to distinguish mystical from mechanical experience.
It is possible that I misunderstood the gist of it, but ZMM left me with the
definite impression that mechanical and mystical experiences are indeed one
at a certain level.
>IMO
>only as an individual is my experience dynamic.
I think the MOQ would agree. From LILA'S CHILD: The word “I” like the word
“self” is one of the trickiest words in any metaphysics. Sometimes it is an
object, a human body; sometimes it is a subject, a human mind. I believe
there are number of philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism,”
that call the “I” or “individual” the central reality. Buddhists say it is
an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it is a collection of static
patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. (Robert Pirsig)
>Were Adam and Eve only
>dynamic?
I don't know.
>Inter-subjective agreement is not a moral contradiction.
Agreed.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 11 2004 - 20:03:16 BST