From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sat Oct 09 2004 - 20:52:57 BST
Hi all,
As I was responding to MarshaV about the positive side of capital sins, it occurred to me that my approach to thought is from the many to 0 (awareness). I am out of step with the flow of posts on the list which propose a flow from 1 (awareness) to many.
A NEW ONTOLOGY
A new theory of matter, time, space, and their interrelationship
by Geoffrey Read
"So that we are postulating the existence of a single basic Absolute, which, following an age-old tradition, we call the One."
Scott in his posts focuses on Intellect. For example on 08 September 2004 7:10 PM:
"5. Therefore, Quality is intellect (while not ceasing to be Quality.)"
Ham Priday on 05 October 2004 5:43 PM writes:
"For me, reality is subjective because I am subjective."
David M on 2 October 2004 12:47 PM writes:
"The self-whole-experience is the interaction of self-organization 'within' across time, and interaction with other self-organizing patterns that are outside our inner-organization but are within our realm of self-experience awareness."
The proposition: "If I can find the one I can explain all the rest" is attractive.
I find two authors that I am attracted to who have a different approach Pirsig and Gurdjeiff.
Pirsig: "But he realized that sooner or later he was going to have to stop carping about how bad subject-object metaphysics was and say something positive for a change. Sooner or later he was going to have to come up with a way of dividing quality that was better than subjects and objects. He would have to do that or get out of metaphysics entirely. It's all right to condemn somebody else's bad metaphysics but you can't replace it with a metaphysics that consists of just one word". Chapter 9 p. 123 paperback edition.
Gurdjieff also complains about how mistaken modern science is in some areas. His thesis seems to be that when something is new it is better. Sort of like a new car is better than a used car. He claims a lot has been lost since the time when sentients first appeared on Earth. He named his book 'All and Everything'.
1 is something 0 is different. I would guess 0 refers to awareness.
Pirsig proposes an evolutionary morality: inorganic, organic, social, intellectual, sq, dq.
Gurdjieff uncovered a law of three. I find Pirsig's the organic, social and intellectual levels intriguing. Gurdjieff uncovered a law-of-seven. I find Mark's description of coherence and the 'sweet spot'between sq and sq to echo the intervals of a law of 7. Chaos to order or the intervals from level to level dq to dq another echo.
I do not know the origin of the need to explain things in one word. God, Absolute and 0 are inexplicable except in terms of existence. I do not hold non-existence to be 0. Science works better from 1, and the 0 of awareness is necessary for creation.
Joe
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 Oct 09 2004 - 22:36:26 BST