From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 26 2004 - 18:57:57 BST
Paul:
> I think the MOQ departs from Jaspers and Priday by referring to "the
> Comprehensive" as Quality, as it regards "being," "God," and "Essence"
> as empirically unverifiable intellectualisations rather than the
> experience of Quality itself.
>
DM: I agree, quality avoids SOM and intellectualisation
that starts to question the beyond of dasein experience.
I think we need to accept that we intellectualise beyond
this undivided quality. We can do this, I like the sacredness of god,
the abstraction of being or be(com)ing, but essence sounds like
static quality, or reductionism, or too anti-agency. Matter of taste.
Maybe sometimes we can hear some echo of comprehensiveness
beyond dasein, the limits of being a particular dasein, is there any
more to say?
But we also aim at this comprehensiveness in our intellectual stories of
everything.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" < >
To: < >
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: MD The individual in the MOQ
> Hi Ham
>
> Ham said:
> At the risk of violating the rules here, may I suggest that chasing
> around to find a logic that "permits" one conclusion over another is not
> helpful when the goal is simply to explain a concept and its meaning.
> Logic does not apply to undifferentiated Quality or Essence, anyway, and
> its use to validate (or invalidate) a metaphysical scenario is a
> distraction to understanding.
>
> Paul:
> It was you, Ham, who stated that the idea that Quality can be the source
> of itself is illogical, as if to invalidate it.
>
> However, to put the exchange in context, Scott and I have had a few
> discussions about non-Aristotelian logic in the past, particularly
> Nishida's Logic of Contradictory Identity. My comment about Indian Logic
> in the post to you was a nod to those discussions; it wasn't a tactic to
> distract you.
>
> Finally, as to your comments above, although I may agree that "logic
> does not apply to undifferentiated Quality," it does not follow that its
> use is always a distraction to an understanding. In fact, in my reply to
> Scott I have provided an example, whether it is faithful to Nagarjuna or
> not, of how a logic of negation can be applied to systems of philosophic
> mysticism such as the MOQ. Scott has done something similar, and
> probably better, with Nishida in the past.
>
> Ham said:
> Jaspers concludes this section with the statement: "Suffice it to say
> that
> the Comprehensive, conceived as being itself, is called transcendence
> (God),
> and the world, while as that which we ourselves are it is called
> being-there, consciousness, mind, and existence." I depart from Jaspers
> only with respect to his definition of the Comprehensive (Essence) as
> "being", as I regard beingness as an "intellectualized" property of
> experienced objects rather than the nature of Essence itself.
>
> Paul:
> I think the MOQ departs from Jaspers and Priday by referring to "the
> Comprehensive" as Quality, as it regards "being," "God," and "Essence"
> as empirically unverifiable intellectualisations rather than the
> experience of Quality itself.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> 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 -
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 : Thu Aug 26 2004 - 20:00:05 BST