RE: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths

From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 09 2005 - 10:56:03 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD MOQ: Involved or on the Sideline?"

    Sam, Ian,

    Ian said:
    >> "Substantive" individual ? We're playing with words. No more
    >> "distinct" individual than distinct anything else, bar quality. And as
    >> the DMB / Scott line on Tat Tvam Asi debate shows - it can barely be
    >> said in words, until you've bought the spirit of it. Like Zen in fact.

    Sam responded:
    >Hang on, let's not get hung up on the words. Do you think that there is
    >something that might be legitimately described as an 'individual'
    >(referring
    >to a human centre of response to DQ at the fourth level)...

    Paul: I have offered a 'self-reweaving web of intellectual patterns' as a
    "human centre of [intellectual] response to DQ."

    Sam:
    ...in the way that
    >there is also, say a 'dog'. In other words, whilst we might describe a dog
    >as a particular set of inorganic and biological patterns, there is sense to
    >saying 'that dog bit me'. It's precisely my point that we can talk about
    >distinct individuals as coherent sets of particular patterns. Which I think
    >is what the MoQ denies.

    Paul: This is a recurring objection to the MOQ which I thought had been put
    to bed. As far as I can tell, it is clear that the MOQ *does not* deny that
    we can talk about distinct individuals as coherent sets of particular
    patterns - in fact that is the MOQ definition of an individual.

    "If you compare the levels of static patterns that compose a human being to
    the ecology of a forest, and if you see the different patterns sometimes in
    competition with each other, sometimes in symbiotic support of each other,
    but always in a kind of tension that will shift one way or the other,
    depending on evolving circumstances, then you can also see that evolution
    doesn't take place only within societies, it takes place within individuals
    too. It's possible to see [individuals] as something much greater than a
    customary sociological or anthropological description would have [them] be.
    [Individuals] then become a complex ecology of patterns moving toward
    Dynamic Quality." [LILA p.412] ('Individual' substituted for 'Lila')

    "If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no
    evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the
    negative face of the Quality that drives the whole process. All these
    battles between patterns of evolution go on within suffering individuals."
    [LILA p.412]

    However, the MOQ *does* deny that there is anything 'essential' or
    'intrinsic' to an individual. There is no individual-in-itself. The MOQ is
    antiessentialist which means that the patterns of the individual are
    considered relational and contingent and could in principle be described (or
    delineated) in an infinite number of alternative ways (but not all are
    valuable). This means that there is no essential, unchanging, individual
    self which was there when (or before) you were born that will remain (or be
    judged or whatever) when you are dead. This is where I think the MOQ and
    Christianity may be at odds. However, I thought I understood the basics of
    Christianity but it seems that Christianity is never what anyone thinks it
    is (see below)!

    >The problem comes when you think you've got a handle on what the words
    >'theism' or 'atheism' refer to or mean. "I have no need of that hypothesis"
    >seems to assume God as one cause amongst other causes, or one object
    >amongst
    >other objects. God is not a member of any class. Bit like DQ. But I'd be
    >happy to drop the entire thing.
    >Let me put it differently. If you unpacked what you mean by 'atheism' you'd
    >find - I suspect - that there is no difference between what we don't
    >believe
    >in.

    Paul: Interesting. What would happen if you announced to your congregation
    that you were an atheist? What would they say if you told them that He
    didn't create man in His own image and doesn't, couldn't possibly, listen to
    their prayers?

    Regards

    Paul

    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 : Tue Aug 09 2005 - 11:56:12 BST