From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 18:20:12 BST
Reinier --
> Here's my attempt to raise your faith in my little MOR (Metaphysics of
Reinier)
I have no "faith" to be raised. What I have is a conviction -- Pirsigians
would call it a "belief system" -- which I owe to visionaries present and
long past.
> Given our agreement ... I will accept a proton as a reality that exists
> independent of OUR experience.
That's not exactly my position. We have agreed to consider "existence" as
that which occurs in space/time; however the "occurrence" also presupposes
experience. So, perhaps our definition should say: Existence is the
*experience* of things in time and space. We are then in agreement with
Pirsig's MoQ which asserts that Quality (I would say the "experience of"
Quality) is the basis of our reality.
I said:
> My theory is that the design of the cosmos is "implanted" in the not-other
> (self), along with proprietary sensibility, in such a way that knowledge
is
> universal. Otherwise, we would all be experiencing a different universe,
> which would make no sense.
You replied:
> This is where I make the step to the buddha-nature of all things
> and I see as much evidence or logic for your 'implantation'
> as I see for my 'buddha nature'. They are both assumptions.
Let's call them hypotheses -- well-reasoned intuitive concepts.
> About buddha-nature you say:
> Well, then, I guess "buddha nature" is another option for defining the
> not-other.
> Both other and not-other, there's no difference.
Logically, of course, there is a difference. In my philosophy, Essence is
The Not-other, which implies "propriety" or "selfness" in the absolute
Source. The "created' other is Existence which is the subject/object
dichotomy everyone wants to get rid of. The "not-" in this other is what I
call the "negate" (a la Sartre). Existentially the negate is nothingness.
But essentially it is the individual self, the subjective "free agent" that
derives its beingness from other (its existential object).
Do you have any problems with the Cusan theory of Not-other as the Source?
I think it's the perfect solution to the DQ enigma.
How can Oneness (your Unity) encompass differentiated existence? Simple.
By making existence its not-other. That way, difference is logically the
essential One, and vice-versa. Moreover, this logic supports the
"unreality" of the individuated self, since self is "not" and everything
experienced is "other". The bond that holds them together is Value. In
Pirsig's terms, the static levels/patterns are essentially DQ! We don't
have to apply any "attributes" to the ineffable; we simply affirm the logic
of this relationship. Doesn't that work for you?
About the ass-PAIN-stove you say:
> Your brain also compares the signals of your nervous system
> with a mental picture in your brain and the result is pain.
> It's the same concept but the pain is a genetic/biological
> mental picture introduces somewhere in evolution,
> while the stove is a intellectual picture, introduced in this lifetime.
> This is as far a distinction as I would go.
The result may be the same, but the the proprietary nature of somatic
sensibility is a different kind of experience than conceptual reasoning that
identifies and defines universal phenomena. I see Value as exclusively a
proprietary experience of the individual. We can express and communicate
our feelings to others, which makes them understood universally. Simple
example: I can point to a stove and say, "see, that's what I'm talking
about"; I can't point to my pain and say, "See, that's what I'm feeling."
Feelings are proprietary to the self. So are (esthetic) values.
You write:
> I agree that too much attention goes to the level and morals
> part of the MOQ, too little on the metaphysical aspects. ...
> Concerning your prediction: You already say it yourself,
> DQ is the source, I'll do my best to give my vision on this. ...
>
> First about my supposed "anti-theist" background.
> I disagree with this. I come from a religious-family but
> somewhere along the way I've rejected that.
Yes, we all do.
> For me the start and end and the source is Unity (DQ).
> From a Unity-point of view there's nothing but that,
> or else it would not be unity. Still this is not what we
> experience. The big-bang may have been a disruption
> of this unity, which instantly create duality.
Unity can't be "disrupted", Reinier. It's immutable. (Intuitively you
already know this.) The solution is Cusa's theory, as explained above.
Unity, Essence, DQ, God -- whatever we choose to call the all-encompassing
Source -- is Not-other.
BANG!!
Reinier, despite our minor differences (mostly terminology) , you and I are
on the same page metaphysically. I can't say that about any other MoQer
I've corresponded with.
I trust you'll take that as a compliment to your intellect, and I look
forward to further discussion with you.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 18:37:35 BST