Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101

From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2005 - 00:17:48 GMT

  • Next message: Phaedrus Wolff: "Re: MD Them pesky skeptics"

    Ant McWatt notes:

    I don't know if the following is of any help with understanding intuition
    and its link with (animal) instinct but Henri Bergson ("Creative Evolution",
    1907, p.160) makes the interesting point that the intellect invented tools
    and then language to manipulate unorganized matter. This explains why, for
    instance, ant societies are based on instinct so their behaviour is
    pre-ordained (and static) while human societies are learnt (largely from
    copying? - see Susan Blackmore) and therefore not (so) pre-ordained (and, as
    such, relatively Dynamic). Abstract notions such as geometry and logic were
    then developed later by humans to specifically handle solids i.e. matter.
    So, in a sense, the concepts of mind and matter developed together - a
    similar point is made by Julian Jaynes in "The Bicameral Mind" (1976).

    Bergson (1907, p.p.176-179) then suggests that intellect is concerned with
    static parts while it is intuition (which he understands as instinct that
    has become conscious) that deals with Dynamic wholes.

    "The double form of consciousness is then due to the double form of the
    real"

    Hi Ant,

    I must admit I can't remember most of what I have read, but I'm thinking it
    was Russell who said something to the nature there was also non-sensory
    intuition involved. To stretch this to limits that are probably not allowed
    here, I think I might say that we know intuitively all that we can reason,
    and this reason can come as much from logic and reason dialect as it does
    intuitively, and/or the intuition is responsible for the thoughts prior to
    the words and logic spoken in the contradictory views we hold that opposes,
    and advances philosophical thought.

    In my more simple, less learned considerations of how we know, I would think
    that the only reason and logic that could explain this advancement in
    knowledge/intellect can be explained in a few different ways. One I have
    already offered is that prior knowledge is built into our brains as a
    cumulative process of remembering ancestory advancements, in which each
    generation advances more from reason and logic due to less questions needed
    to be asked, as the questions have already been asked, and answered to our
    satisfacion prior to our birth. Thinking this way, there is still a cultural
    limit to our knowledge, as cultural knowledge/confusion is also built into
    our pre-intellectual thought.

    Another possible theory as to how advancement in though might happen would
    be that as we grow more intelligent from everything we learn, our brains
    evolve to be more apt at handling all the information they take in, which
    equips them to better handle and understand experiences and philosophical
    thought.

    Another possible theory is that we actually already equipped with the
    knowledge at birth, and all the dialectic arguments and experiences simply
    offer hints that help us to bring this knowledge to the forefront, and it is
    only a continuation of the natural processes which more and more external
    experiences become available through natural evolution of the intellect and
    challenges of the intellect that face us.

    Another possible theory might involve the cosmos that Platt mentioned
    earlier. This would fall into the Hindu belief of periods of enlightenment
    and nights of rest within a circular concept of time that is continuous and
    not beginning at one period in time and ending at another. I think some
    Native Americans also follow this concept in which something like the black
    hole opens up and the universal sun shines through. This is spiritual of
    course, but are there not scientific theories as well that state we are
    connected to the universe and the movements of the planets (not only
    astrology)?

    These are only far out there theories, but I have found no better
    explanation as to where 'New' thought comes from; where Quality enters into
    the picture with its Dynamic Quality, or DQ/SQ, or enlightenment, or
    mystical enlightenment that can be explained without the concept of
    intuition.

    Maybe your thesis will help me to undertand better. :o)

    Oh the trials of a childish mind in an old body. Oooops!

    Chin

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:37 PM
    Subject: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101

    > Platt Holden stated January 10th 2005:
    >
    > >Chin asked: If intuition is not DQ, then what is it?
    > >
    > >DMB replies: Instinct. A hunch. A feeling. Its a vague word and should be
    > >avoided by philosophers for that reason, especially if we are trying to
    > >distinguish instincts and feelings from a mystical experience.
    > >
    > >Chin: I guess it is possible we could reduce ourselves to
    non-intellectual
    > >animals.
    > >
    > >Platt: Point well made, Chin. It looks more and more like mystic
    experience
    > >is
    > >like animal experience, i.e., without concepts.
    >
    > Ant McWatt notes:
    >
    > I don't know if the following is of any help with understanding intuition
    > and its link with (animal) instinct but Henri Bergson ("Creative
    Evolution",
    > 1907, p.160) makes the interesting point that the intellect invented tools
    > and then language to manipulate unorganized matter. This explains why, for
    > instance, ant societies are based on instinct so their behaviour is
    > pre-ordained (and static) while human societies are learnt (largely from
    > copying? - see Susan Blackmore) and therefore not (so) pre-ordained (and,
    as
    > such, relatively Dynamic). Abstract notions such as geometry and logic
    were
    > then developed later by humans to specifically handle solids i.e. matter.
    > So, in a sense, the concepts of mind and matter developed together - a
    > similar point is made by Julian Jaynes in "The Bicameral Mind" (1976).
    >
    > Bergson (1907, p.p.176-179) then suggests that intellect is concerned with
    > static parts while it is intuition (which he understands as instinct that
    > has become conscious) that deals with Dynamic wholes.
    >
    > "The double form of consciousness is then due to the double form of the
    > real"
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
    > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Thu Jan 13 2005 - 00:32:45 GMT