From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 21:04:56 BST
Hi Ham
By the way, whilst Macann is interesting and has good
knowledge of Eastern thought I think his talk about
spirit versus matter seems to mask the fact that matter
has to be understood as dependent on DQ and has a genetic
story of evolution as much as any other SQ. I think this is
an error due to lack of knowledge about current developments
in science and the philosophy of science that challenges
notions about natural laws, reductionism, determinism, and
coherent unity. This sort of thinking is starting up a lot of talk
about emergence as in Prigogine's The End of Certainty, and
talk about levels and the general disorder of things as in John
Dupre's The Disorder of Things. Dupre's book received a very
favourable review in Nature, he teaches at Stanford, and his
insistence on general disorder and partial order and levels
sounds a lot like the MOQ. He is also very dismissive of
non-reductive physicalism, is a realist, and is saying science is
in need of a new ontology and metaphysics, also tells the post-moderns
that without metaphysics you can't do any science, and I think the MOQ
might be something like the sort of ontology he is looking for.
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 - 01:28:26 BST