From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 19:02:38 BST
Scott: > Yes, all assumptive structures are limited. What I disagree with is
the
> idea that there is some really true universe existing out there that is
not
> an assumptive structure. To speak mythically, I would say that God assumes
> some structure, and that is how universes come into existence. In other
> words, language writ large isn't about describing some non-linguistic
> reality (as SOM would have it). Instead, all realities are different ways
> for Intellect to express itself.
DM: in the beginning: word or deed? Got to be
something that is all these things: pattern, event, awareness,
love, value....
>
> This is nominalism, which I reject. Where did the ability to abstract come
> from? It is irreducible, and presupposes universals. So language is
> aboriginal.
DM: yes, in terms of pattern & repeat & copy & template
not in terms of spoken noises and black ink on paper
> > Why does thinking and feeling seem to come from "within" (to be "me")
> while
> > sense perception seems to come from "without" (to be caused by "not
me")?
> > In many people's earliest memories, there was no distinction
between
> > within and without. That is a learned distinction, both a mirror
and
> > words teach this. Within is always from your point of view at the
> > moment of experience and memory, without is your ability to
> > abstract from the now and approximate elseness in relation to your
> > point of view. (All of this is as you apprehend. The rest of the
> > universe exists when you do not remember, as do you. - sleep ]
DM: well you project experience into a 3d space & time that must be a
containing of your internal making, but when you analyse this external
experience we know that it is full of models, memory, universals,
all internal stuff, and brain-science also shows how experience is
a construction, so we are shouls stop beingl naive realists.
>
> Whom does it teach? I will grant that there exists consciousness that does
> not concern itself with me/not-me. Adult human consciousness, however,
> does, and if it didn't there would be no intellect, no ability to reflect
> on SQ. So I see adult human existence as, in some very moderate degree
> fulfilling intellect, that our intellects are repeating on a very small
> scale the Intellect that makes realities.
DM: Yes but also no, what about MOQ I think you need to grasp
how we can split patterns up that are or 'are not' projected externally.
There is internal SQ that is also problematically me/not me.
> > Why does simply thinking that subject/object dualism is "just a static
> > pattern of intellectual value" not allow one to dissolve the difference
> > between me and not-me?
> > In most cases when you say or think "me" you are holding
> > an entire learned set of "me-ness" rules and social functions,
> > rather than simply the pure consciousness of your-point-of-
> > view-now, just as you are holding the learned set of SOM
> > rules and definitions.
> > Sometimes, rarely, you can lay it all down and BE without
> > the baggage. [lots of names and descriptions of this...]
>
DM: and it is problematic beyond this, my body is also
an object and can be seen as not me, my past can become
distant and cease to be me, if I associate myself with pure DQ
it is all SQ patterns that have taken on alien patterns no longer
of my choosing, hence we struggle to control the alien habits
that we have laid down for ourselves. We become a zone of SQ
pattern conflict or coherence.
> You can do the same thing with a lobotomy. Pure consciousness is of no use
> except for a bit of blissfulness. See Franklin Merrell-Wolff as an example
> of a mystic who went beyond it, and reports all of existence as being
> fundamentally noetic.
>
> >
> >
> > Why is being aware of what I just thought different from being aware of
> the
> > tree in front of me?
DM: olny the tree is being projected into 3d external space time of
our own (species) making
(note: in SOM these are two different kinds of
> objects.
> > In the MOQ one cannot say that, since in the MOQ only inorganic and
> > biological patterns can be objects of awareness.)
> > same as "within" - "without"
> >
> > Is mind identical to the brain (or: can there be mind, or consciousness,
> > without a brain)?
> > Nope! [not for humans that can exists as "normals"]
>
> I don't understand which question your "nope" is the answer to, nor the
bit
> in brackets.
>
> >
> > [Scott:]
> > And so on. The MOQ's answers (at least as you give them above, and I
> haven't
> > seen any better answers) amount to dualism. There was matter (static
> > particulars) and then there was mind (static universals). Unless DQ is
God
> > and created universals ex nihilo, in which case the MOQ is theistic.
> Unless
> > universals "really are" reducible to particulars (say neural events), in
> > which case the MOQ is materialist. In short, the MOQ provides nothing
new
> > for a philosophy of mind.
> >
> > mel:
> > Don't try to make the MoQ be TOO MUCH...it need
> > not be a gilded lilly.
>
> But it does need to purge itself of its nominalist bias.
>
> >
> [Scott:]> (And yes, I acknowledge that I don't have answers to these
> questions either,
> > at least ones that can be expressed without violating the law of the
> > excluded middle, or without questioning the absoluteness of time. My
> > position (borrowed from Peirce, Coleridge, Barfield, Nishida, etc.) is
> that
> > the answers require polarity, or contradictory identity. That subject
and
> > object arise together, that each defines the other as it negates the
> other.)
> >
> > mel:
> > Slot screwdriver doesn't work well in Phillip's head...
>
> Please explain how this applies.
>
> - 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 - 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 : Tue Sep 14 2004 - 19:13:24 BST