From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 16:45:46 BST
David M,
[DM:]> very Kantian, how far do you stick to Kant & does the MOQ
> differ from Kant?
[Scott:] Only this far, that the spatio-temporality of things (which is
what makes them separated things) is the sensory perception of them. I
differ in that I would say that the things-in-themselves are knowable,
though we don't know them very well. I would say our cognitive relation to
the things-in-themselves is potentially the same as our relation to hearing
someone speak, and through the speech be able to know the speaker's mind.
In our current stage of conscious evolution, we have lost most of the
ability to read through the spatio-temporal form of nature (its syntax).
This ability is what Barfield calls original participation. Science is
limited to studying the syntax, although with quantum physics, this may be
changing, although it too would likely be limited to divining what Chomsky
would call deep structure. However, it is limited to that which produces
the bare bones of sensory perception (space, time, and mass), while there
are presumably other deep structures for other levels, such as instinct. It
is these that we have lost the ability to read. Final participation, by the
way, would not be recovering that ability in the same way that
pre-intellectual peoples had. It would, instead, be a deepening of the
intellect.
My knowledge of Kant is pretty superficial, so I'm not really sure of how
far I, or the MOQ, differs. Pretty far, I think.
- Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Roberts" < >
> To: < >
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:04 AM
> Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Logic/Science
>
>
> > Mel,
> >
> > > I am afraid that I do not see how an independent
> > > notion of time (apart from relative movement) is required.
> > > If it is I need to understand it.
> >
> > One doesn't need an independent notion of time apart from relative
> > movement. What one needs is a notion of eternity so that one can speak
of
> > movement being observed, that can capture the succession of instants as
a
> > movement of a continuing thing, or, alternatively, that denies that
there
> > is any succession of instants in the first place. What I am getting at
is
> > that if one assumes separated things and events (which we call
spacetime)
> > as the basis of reality then one cannot have mind. So, I argue, the
> > separation into things and events (the creation of spacetime) is the
> > product of perception, that perception turns an eternal whatever (e.g.
the
> > quantum universe) into a spatio-temporal organization.
> >
> > - Scott
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 : Sun Sep 05 2004 - 16:52:30 BST