From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 23 2004 - 01:01:33 GMT
In a message dated 11/22/04 3:37:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com writes:
Seems, if you look closely, while description
is not philosophy, philosophy is description,
whether mechanistic, definitional, interpretational,
relational, or otherwise.
Hi mel,
How can I argue with this. If we take description out of our philosophy, how
is it possible we could 'describe' our philosophy, and what good is a
philosophy that has the ability to change the world if you cannot relate it in a
manner it can be understood? This is difficult, as I also see the difficulties
in describing 'The Good', or Happiness, or Excellence for that matter. How do
you describe an idea that is fixed, eternal, and unmoving that is constantly
changing, and undescribable in any fixed way?
This is what RMP is trying to do with Quality. He is placing Quality or
Value before anything else; before subject and object, mind and matter, form and
mannerisms. He is trying to define Quality, and by doing so, he is opening
himself up the the philosophers who use description to define 'The Truth'. What
he is doing is putting Quality before Truth, and that simply is not going to
work for 'Truth seekers.' How can you find the truth without describing it?
The undescribable truth would be what you cannot see. 'Horseness' that Plato
uses cannot be seen. When you see a Horse, in any variety of horses, this
horse has characteristics that can be described. The horse is real, and there is
no reason to include 'Horseness' in your description. It would be the same
for 'Man'. Man can be described, and there is no reason to include Man or
Manness in the description.
This is where we have difficulty with mysticism and spirituality. As Marsha
noted, we described God, and by doing so offend those who do no resemble God
because it is taught we were made in the immage of God. If we are not a white
male, then we are not in this immage that is described. If you try to say God
is everything, He is the Earth, Moon, and Stars, and the Earth, Moon, and
Stars do not talk - they cannot describe how we should be. Mysticism or
spirituality is a means of getting in touch with the source. In religion, this
source is God, in Indian sprituality this source is the Creator, in science, we
create our own source from a 'Masterful mind' at the center of the universe. If
I am not (and it is quite possible I am) wrong, then this 'One' and
"Oneness' would be the same.
If we keep our philosophy on reality terms, it is much easier. The 'Truth'
is above all. It is all that counts. You can describe a 'Truth.' The 'Good' you
can't, so if you are a philosopher, and you want to keep your credibility,
it is probably wise to stay away from 'The Good.'
You think?
Chin
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 23 2004 - 01:05:12 GMT