From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 16:22:43 GMT
Hi DMB,
> dmb says:
> I'll be repeating myself because I touched on this in the other forum, but
> basically I think that when we say DQ is "primary" and sq is "secondary"
> we
> are talking about a sequence of events in the MOQ's epistemology. In this
> case, primary does not mean "superior" or "better". It only means primary
> in
> the sense of being the most basic, the first in a sequence. So I think we
> can continue to talk about the epistemological relationship in terms of
> what's primary and what's secondary, but that we should not construe that
> to
> mean that secondary means anything like "inferior" or "derivitive".
OK. I'll pursue part of that in MF (once I've digested Anthony's appendix
;-) but if you're happy with the yin/yang symbol as expressing the
relationship between DQ and SQ then there's not that much dividing us. Some
significant things, but not as much as I thought.
> In terms of the two view, I have to confess I'm a bit lost. In view A, for
> example, I don't see how the classic/romantic spilt or the subject/object
> split is "metaphysically equivalent" to the static/dynamic split. He
> thoroughly attacks one and abandons the other in order to have the third.
> So
> what does it mean to say they are equivalent?
What I mean is that they are each a primary slicing of reality. He is
replacing one split with another split, so my point was that they are each
the first move in a metaphysical system. They would not be metaphysically
equivalent if DQ is identified with the 'unsplit' reality (then the
divisions between SQ would be the equivalent of romantic/classic etc). This
is why I want to hold on to the idea of "Quality" as in some sense separate
from DQ/SQ, not necessarily as a third element, but to prevent the
reification of DQ. This is where I find Scott's language of 'contradictory
identity' helpful, so perhaps 'Quality is the contradictory identity of DQ
and SQ' would capture my view. Don't know if that's an accurate use of his
language though.
> Another issue that my have lots of import here is the idea of 180 degree
> enlightenment and 360 degree enlightenment. (I think it was Ant who
> provided
> that explanation.) In this view, static quality will be an obstacle to DQ
> until it is transcended, at which point it becomes transparent to the
> divine, if you will. (And I don't mean just religious static forms, but
> all
> of static reality.) Roughly speaking the MOQ combines the idea that the
> divine is transcendent AND that it is immanent at the same time.
"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who
understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used
them - as steps - to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the
ladder after he has climbed up it."
> Yea, the yin/yang symbol look like the MOQ to me.
Great. I'm very comfortable with the idea of combining the transcendent and
the immanent as well (very incarnational).
Am I thinking we're agreeing too much here?
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 05 2005 - 18:16:07 GMT