Re: [Spam] Re: MD the metaphysics of free enterprise

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 22:13:40 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD Send your money in."

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "johnny moral" <johnnymoral@hotmail.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 6:50 PM
    Subject: Re: [Spam] Re: MD the metaphysics of free enterprise

    > Hi Platt
    >
    > >I'm glad I don't have to depend on public records (which can be forged)
    or
    > >my mother, doctor, etc. (all dead) for my existence.
    >
    > You do have to depend on your mother for your existence, you self-centered
    > freak! You have to depend on someone noticing you, at least once, to
    exist.
    > Or, perhaps, deducing your existence from other evidence. I maintain
    that
    > if there was no evidence for a person's existence, if no woman ever
    > experienced giving birth to a postulated person and no one ever noticed a
    > person, then that person does not exist. You seem to be implying that
    > people can just materialize into existence, like I can suddenly have a 30
    > year old younger brother even though no such person ever existed before.
    I
    > think my mother would know if there was such a person out there.
    >
    > > > Besides, you are a consciousness, part of the human consciousness that
    > > > creates everything, so while you are alone you are still creating the
    > >world
    > > > and being created by patterns of morality.
    > >
    > >In other words, there's I who creates me? Who is this I? If I identify
    > >this I, who is doing the identifying? Another I? How many "I's" must I
    > >postulate.
    >
    > OK, no, the patterns are always what is creating you and at the same time
    > they are using the locus of consciousness they create ("you") to continue
    > their own existence by having you expect them into the future. You would
    > not be born into consciousness but for other "I"s expecting you to be a
    > consciousness. The other "I"'s are not you, they are me and the rest of
    us,
    > living, dead, and not yet born - in other words, all of Morality expects a
    > new baby to be conscious, to be one of us. Morality creates new people,
    new
    > locii of consciousness.
    >
    > > > David M wrote:
    > > > >How about from the other side. Take sensory deprivation,
    > > > >it seems to destroy the experience of an SOM type.
    > > > >Does this seems to have important implications about
    > > > >the relationship between being and sense?
    > > >
    > > > Sense just senses for a small sample of time, and the world in between
    > > > those senses is filled in by our minds according to our beliefs.
    Thus,
    > > > while we are asleep or in a sensory deprivation tank, our minds
    believe
    > > > that things contnue to exist.
    > >
    > >How can you possibly know that minds believe that things continue to
    exist
    > >when we're asleep?
    >
    > I mean we believe the world continues to exist while we sleep. I don't
    know
    > what we are thinking as we sleep, we just believe, while awake, that the
    > world will continue to exist "out there", independently of our thinking of
    > it, while we sleep. It is a high quality belief, perhaps the highest (and
    > it is called SOM).
    >
    > > > I'm surprised this idea, that existence and being come from experience
    > >and
    > > > don't actually exist "out there", meet resistance? How can one
    accept
    > > > Lila without agreeig with this?
    > >
    > >I'm surprised you don't see that experience must necessarily exist before
    > >existence and being can "come from experience."
    >
    > Expectation (Morality) preceeds existence, and experience is simultaneous
    > with existence of subject and object. Once subject/object experience
    > happens, that experience becomes expectation that both subject and object
    > will be repeated.
    >
    > >You have accounted for
    > >the existence of the cart (existence and being) but ignored the existence
    > >and being of the horse.
    >
    > The horse and cart are Morality. Are you saying the horse is DQ, by any
    > chance? Maybe there's a large horn on its head, too?
    >
    > >Your argument appears circular: experience that
    > >creates existence is by existence created.
    >
    > Correct, it is circular, like Yin-Yang, Being-ahead-of-itself, etc. If
    you
    > are wondering where the circle started, back at the beginning of time,
    there
    > is much agreement about this - it started with the Word, Morality,
    > Expectation, Undifferentiated Quality. This was at the beginning, when
    time
    > began, with the first experience of Quality. (I say this was about 10,000
    > years ago, and the 15 Billion years before that was created quite recently
    > in order to make our world make sense, to make our highest quality beliefs
    > consistent and keep Morality going)
    >
    > Platt, I think you are tilting at windmills here, why are you arguing with
    > me? You know that the MoQ says that SOM is merely a very high quality
    idea,
    > right? (Not "merely", but awesomely, gloriously and essentially) You
    > aren't wrong to call SOM true and say that we are "really" here, but this
    is
    > a philosophy forum! About the MoQ! Philosophically, there is nothing
    "out
    > there", we are not existing subjects and objects, existence depends on
    > concsiousness, belief, expectation, faith, and Morality. You are trying
    to
    > assert SOM comes first! Makes me think you are just using the bits of the
    > MoQ you like as some sort of Ayn Randian prop to promote individualism and
    > elitism, but you don't really want to understand it philosophically.
    >
    > Johnny
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
    > get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Fri Aug 13 2004 - 00:02:03 BST