From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Sep 18 2004 - 14:50:20 BST
David M,
> 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....
On the God-level (I am assuming) word is deed, deed is word, thinking,
willing, feeling, perceiving are all the same acts.
>
>
> >
> > 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
Yes in terms of Peirce's thirdness. Call it semiotic if you want to
restrict language to spoken noises and ink on paper.
> > 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.
I don't follow. Yes, we have projectable patterns and non-projectable (and
projectable but not projected), but I don't see the relevance to my claim,
that all is semiotic.
> > > 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
That just describes the difference. The mind/matter question is: are there
two realms of awareness (dualism) or one (monism), and if the latter, why
does it seem to be two (or, why isn't monism obvious).
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 18 2004 - 14:49:39 BST