From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 20:36:54 GMT
but what underlies every thing is nothing,
a nothing that has an infinite potential.
And a nothing capable of withdrawing itself to
allow something, then withdrawing a little more,
until there is no more moves allowed
and only a return is possible.
dm
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: MD On Transcendence
> 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
>
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 - 23:23:41 GMT