From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 07:21:57 GMT
Ham to Chuck, David and Mel
Hello again, gentlemen.
In answer to David's question --
> Is there any use for the concept of transcendence
> in the MOQ? If not is this an error in the MOQ?
> If not an error why not?
Chuck replied:
> Initially, I say the MoQ leans toward the
> intrisically esoteric, rather than the transcendent, but I wonder if there
> isn't a specific exchange, thread or passage which may have birthed such
> woolgathering.
>
> This may keep up me at night.
To which Mel provided the following (MOQ approvable) definition for
"transcendence":
> Thinking in terms of systems,
> any system has a meta-system
> and moving beyond the system
> into the meta is to transcend...
>
> Thinking in terms of MoQ and
> the levels...each levels rules
> transcend the prior levels rules.
>
> So, it is inherently part of MoQ
> or so it seems.
The key phrase here is "so it seems." David has raised an important issue.
The MOQ is indeed in error by failing to posit a transcendent reality, while
allowing us to infer one. Since I don't want to be responsible for keeping
Chuck up at night, I'll confess that I may have used the word in an earlier
posting. It also appeared in the Amazon intervewer's opening question to
Sam Harris (referred to in the "terror & religion" thread): "Obviously
there's something in the makeup of humans that impels them toward a belief
in a transcendent being."
Yes, Mel, the prefix "meta-" imparts a transcendent dimension to the base
term. Thus, meta-physics is a study of reality transcending (in your words,
"moving beyond") the physical. But transcending does not mean simply
encompassing higher and higher levels of physical reality, ad infinitum. It
signifies a different reality altogether. This is not just "woolgathering",
Chuck. The whole point of metaphysics is to answer what is the Essential
Reality? What lies beyond existence? Or, conversely, as I wrote in my
thesis, "How do we get from the immovable absolute to the transitional
relative?" The MOQ does not explore this issue; it does not offer an
ontology to support Quality as the causal agent.
This omission has nothing to do with the author's desire to avoid theism,
since the God of religion is a "supreme being", and what possesses being
exists as an object to be perceived. Isn't Quality also an aspect of
objects perceived? If so, then Quality does not transcend the physical
world, which means that it is contingent upon a subject-object duality.
This is precisely why I continue to insist that without a transcendent
source the MOQ is inadequate as a metaphysical theory.
Essentially yours,
Ham
>
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 Nov 09 2004 - 07:26:39 GMT