Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 - 20:06:10 GMT

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:04 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

    > Hi Joe,
    >
    > Thanks for the further thoughts. You say:
    >
    >> My professor of scholasticism 43 years ago proposed to me a theory of
    >> knowledge called abstraction based on real (the object) and intentional
    >> (the
    >> subject) existence. The mind is different in existence from matter. IMO
    >> the
    >> 'Kantian problematic' uses this theory of abstraction proposed by
    >> Aristotle.
    >
    > OK
    >
    >> Phenomena is mind- subjective, and noumena is outside the mind-objective.
    >> I
    >> accepted the abstraction theory until I read Pirsig. The MOQ proposes a
    >> better explanation of knowledge, Everything is Quality.
    >
    > Can you spell out why? That is, that's exactly what I used to believe too.
    > Now I think that there is
    > a bit of a problem that needs to be looked at again - hence the essay.
    >
    >> I have not read Schleiermacher. I reacted to the quotes you proposed from
    >> Grace Jantzen. I interpreted from those quotes that Schleiermacher simply
    >> proposed a new faculty 'immediate consciousness or feeling'. If that is a
    >> wrong interpretation I am sorry! IMO He does not deny the Kantian
    >> abstraction, only that Kant didn't see deeply enough.
    >
    > I agree, but that's my point. Put differently, the 'perennial philosophy'
    > as currently formed - and
    > which Pirsig seems to subscribe to (see his note on the Copleston
    > annotations) seems quite
    > thorough-going Kantian.
    >
    > I haven't read Schleiermacher either, although I have read James, and I
    > recognise the conceptual
    > shape. I talked about Schleiermacher simply because it made the link to
    > Kant clear, and I have a lot
    > of respect for Jantzen.
    >
    >> The MOQ denies the Kantian abstraction. The mind, outside the mind split
    >> occurs through evolution within the inorganic order.
    >
    > This is what I think needs to be defended more explicitly. Do you want to
    > have a go?
    >
    >> It is your opinion that
    >> 'the MOQ parallels Schleiermacher'.
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> I have a different opinion that they
    >> come to a seemingly same solution from different directions.
    >
    > Well if it's the same solution then it is vulnerable to the same
    > criticisms.
    >
    >> The 'mind' of
    >> the MOQ has different characteristics, and may well be a creation of
    >> 'awareness' by the Intellectual level. Scott Roberts has done yeoman work
    >> in
    >> explaining Intellect/intellect. The criticisms of Schleiermacher might
    >> apply
    >> to Scott's proposal, but that is bad procedure to carry criticisms across
    >> metaphysical lines. The metaphysics changes the application of the
    >> observation.
    >
    > I've said a lot - probably too much - about why the 'standard' conception
    > of mind in the MoQ is
    > flawed.
    >
    >> IMO Pirsig proposes an idealism in awareness, not in evolution.
    >
    > It's the link with idealism where the Kantian inheritance seems clearest
    > IMHO. More broadly, I think
    > the emphasis and link which Pirsig makes with empiricism (I think he says
    > explicitly in Lila at one
    > point that the MoQ is empirically based) implicitly draws on SOM, and
    > therefore compromises the MoQ.
    >
    >> I find it interesting that 'feeling' and 'emotion' are suggested as the
    >> origin of the mystical experience. IMO the awareness of evolution of the
    >> social level creates an experience expressed by Struan's 'emotivism'. I
    >> prefer to see the social level as order. IMO Existence determines order.
    >> I
    >> find no contradiction in a mystical experience of inorganic, organic,
    >> social
    >> (emotional) .........absolute, intellectual level. The absolute as
    >> creative
    >> is an acceptable experience of order in the social level. It is dogma in
    >> the
    >> other levels. IMO creation in the intellectual order is acceptable
    >> experience as personality and awareness. Are order and creative awareness
    >> different? What comes to mind is the real thing and an image of the real
    >> thing. In evolution creation comes after order and is a higher level.
    >
    > Sorry, can't see the relevance of this to the point I'm making.
    >
    >> The Edge of Chaos, The Sweet Spot, has been in my thoughts, and I felt it
    >> applied the experience of 'emanation' outside an evolutionary framework.
    >> To
    >> me it seems 'emanation' is valuable in a line of thought that 'embodies?'
    >> mystical experience in the discrimination between levels. (I didn't say
    >> that
    >> bery well, but I hope you cee tyhe analogy.)
    >
    > What sort of 'mystical experience' are you assuming - that's the point of
    > my concern.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Sam
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Mon Dec 13 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT