From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 17:54:06 BST
Hi Scott
You read Kant in the same way Hegel does you know.
The notion of deep structure is very key to Roy Bhaskar's
anti-positivist realist approach to science. Bhaskar
and Hegel being anti-dualists like Pirsig.
thanks
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" < >
To: < >
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Logic/Science
> 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
>
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 - 18:58:03 BST