From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 20:09:05 BST
Hi Johnny,
Platt (previously)
> >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.
Oh, I get it. According to your philosophy, someone somewhere sometime has
to have noticed I existed or else I wouldn't exist now. What if a tree
grows in a forest and no one notices it. Does it exist?
Platt (previously)
> >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.
So now it's patterns creating consciousness so that the patterns that
created consciousness will continue to exist because the consciousness
created by the patterns expects the patterns to continue. Gets complicated
doesn't it? Hardly meets Pirsig's standard for "economy of explanation."
> 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.
Seems to me a higher quality explanation would be that I exist and have
consciousness because my dad slept with my mother.
Platt (previously)
> >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.
In the MOQ, nothing precedes existence. Existence (Reality) is Morality,
and Morality is direct experience, prior to--not simultaneous with --
subject and object..
Platt (previously)
> >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?
How can the horse and cart "be" Morality. Horses and carts are derivatives
of Morality, not Morality itself. And yes, we all know you think DQ is
like the tooth fairy.
Platt (previously)
> >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.
In the MOQ, no one experiences Quality. Quality is experience. It has
never started. It will never stop.
> 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?
Right.
> 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.
Wrong. In the MOQ, existence doesn't depend on anything. Existence is
Value, Quality, Morality. From that unity, all is intellectually derived.
> You
> are trying to assert SOM comes first!
Wrong. Quality comes first. You are trying to assert that consciousness
comes first or emerges simultaneously with Quality. It doesn't.
> 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.
The way you describe the MOQ makes me think you want to promote socialism
But, let's not get into blaming hidden political motivations for our
respective views shall we?
Platt
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 - 20:33:28 BST