From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 20:53:53 BST
Hi Ham
Glad it was interesting. Geoffrey Read has a website too
at:
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: MD URT vs MOQ
>
> Hi David --
>
> Thanks for pointing out this website, which may offer a suitable vehicle
> to
> submit an article in behalf of my own philosophy.
>
> http://www.onlineoriginals.com/showitem.asp?itemID=287&articleID=35
>>
>> This may interest other MOQers as it shows how an ontology of
>> equi-primordial being and becoming or SQ & DQ can offer a new
>> conception of god. Macann also discusses relationship of his ideas to
>> the East and people like Nishida. I think Macann in this essay sets out
>> a good reason why the ONE should not be thought of as conscious.
>> Macannlike Pirsig see the need to describe being/SQ in levels so as
>> to be able to tell a genetic story of the dynamic evolution of being/SQ.
>
> Macann addresses the right questions in this very literate article, but is
> careful to avoid answering any of them in an unequivocal manner. I
> suppose
> "lack of conviction" is viewed as a desirable characteristic of the
> philosophical scholar. Also, I'm not particularly comfortable with
> Heidegger's 'becoming of being' concepts which seem to concern Macann
> almost
> as much as societal evolution obsesses Pirsig.
>
> Although I'm not sufficiently schooled in Eastern mysticism to comment on
> Nishida, I agree that consciousness, as in the awareness of an objective
> other, should not -- indeed could not logically -- be regarded as an
> attribute of the One. However, while it is my opinion that no specific
> (i.e., finite) attribute is assignable to the primary source, its link to
> conscious awareness does imply "sentience in its absolute state", whatever
> that might represent metaphysically. Without it, we may as well forego
> the
> idea of a primary source altogether since it adds nothing to the meaning
> of
> the life-experience.
>
> For that reason, I prefer Geoffrey Read's "The Fatal Trap" and "A New
> Ontology", both of which are published on this same site. Let me quote
> from
> the latter as an example of what I mean.
>
> "[Hegel] rightly saw that the source must be defined in terms of something
> common to all experience, something of which every experience is a
> particular instance. But his definition is unsatisfactory because he
> failed
> to define 'being', leaving it as an empty abstraction. With our precise
> theory of the structure of entities we are in a position to improve upon
> this. Two components of the basic problem are obvious enough. We cannot
> define the One in terms of anything ontologically prior, since, by the
> very
> nature of the case, there is nothing ontologically prior. Also, for our
> definition to be meaningful, we must define the One in experiential terms.
> But since all experience necessarily derives from the One, it might seem
> that any such definition must involve circularity. However, though all
> experiences derive from the One, in a sense they still are the One, since
> they are no more than dynamic forms, or patterned processes, of the One
> and
> its Negation -- which latter, as we have seen, is purely privative, owing
> its existence solely to the One. So that, in effect, the One is the sole
> substance of the Universe."
>
> I think this ontology is compatible with the experiential basis of
> Pirsig's
> MoQ, and it perfectly expresses my theory of Essence as the Not-other. It
> would also fit Kaufman's URT thesis, if he could see his way to including
> a
> non-existential source.
>
> I shall have to study these theories more thoroughly before judging their
> significance, but you have provided a fine reference for this area of
> personal interest. I look forward to discussing the finer points of these
> concepts with you in the near future, David.
>
> Again, many thanks for putting the URT into a broader philosophical
> perspective, and for your willingness to consider the notion of a primary
> source.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Sun Aug 07 2005 - 00:10:25 BST