Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 10:18:40 BST

  • Next message: MarshaV: "Re: MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - morality"

    Hello Ham,

    You wrote:
    However, I do think that, in our space/time way of looking at
    the universe, we imagine a time in which it did not exist. Perhaps
    this is
    only an "intellectualized" scenario, but the beginning and ending of
    things
    is built into that concept. That is, from an existential perspective,
    the
    universe is not "eternal" but follows the laws of entropy -- from the
    Big
    Bang to its total collapse. Inasmuch as this concept is so ingrained
    in us,
    it is a universally accepted pattern that I don't feel the philosopher
    is in
    a position to challenge.

    Me:
    You're right, but it's something to realize, that the limits of
    existence are intellectual concepts rather then real limits of a real
    universe. This realization becomes important when diggin in the
    Essential questions about creation, source, etc.

    You:
    Of course there is also the possibility of a multi-universe system, or
    the
    "multi-dimensional reality" of New Age metaphysics. Although I do not
    subscribe to these views -- they seem to defy the principle of Occam's
    razor -- they could conceivably account for an experiential "actuality"
    without beginning or end. Indeed, Cusan theory postulates that
    Potentiality
    and Actually are both present in the "coincidental" first principle
    (Source.) That would imply that awareness (i.e., experience=existence)
    is
    timeless and omnipresent. In other words, existence must be eternal.

    What think you?

    Me:
    I do not know anything about New Age metaphysics and taken multiple
    universes into account at this stage seems unnecessary complex.

    You said:
    I agree that value can only be experienced "once removed" from Essence.
     In
    that sense it is subject (awareness) valuing objective beingness. At
    the
    same time, the "ultimate" value is Essence. In my philosophy (and to
    some
    extent in the MoQ) it is the individual's response to Value which makes
    life
    purposeful. I see the interaction between the cognizant self (negate)
    and
    its
    Primary Source fulfilling a metaphysical principle through Value.
    Which is
    to say, Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy. This concept, in fact,
    is
    what I was initially looking to find supported in the MoQ. Its author
    hints
    at it, but falls short of actually expressing it.

    Me:
    A value in MoQ perspective hints to a static pattern. The moral system
    says any static pattern in a higher level
    is more moral then that in a lower level.
     From a buddhistic point of view I would say, any SP is clinging to
    existence, because existence is described in SP's. So any SP is keeping
    you away from Essence (or Nirvana). Every higher MoQ level is more
    dynamic and thus has less SP's. That counts for the higher morality,
    but it's not the SP that is of higher morality but the entire level
    because it has less SP's. But still a SP in the intellectual level, or
    a SP in the social level, they're both SP, and thus not the highest
    possible value, which is value-less, which is Essence.
    So I see what you mean by valuistic, and Essence being the highest
    value. I just look at it slightly different.

    You:
    Pirsig might like that as a way of assuaging the theists. But I infer
    from
    your first two lines that only the potential for SQ was there, not its
    actuality. If SQ represents Existence, that makes DQ pre-existential
    (i.e.,
    pre-intellectual), and we have to resort to a biblical view of Creation.

    Me:
    I don't distinguish between actuality and potential. The actualization
    is the realization (awareness) of the potential.

    You:
    This gets back to my previous question: Do you believe there is (or can
    be)
    a Source in the absence of experience? If you do, you'd have to say
    that
    Cusa's Potentiality is not co-dependent with Actuality. I understand
    that
    time is relative and the Absolute is timeless. Still, I don't know how
    to
    resolve the condition of "non-actuality" without tossing out Cusa's
    Coincidence theory. I definitely need your help here, Reinier!

    Me:
    Yes there can be Essence without existence. Without valueing the
    potential, without our differentiated awareness, without our subjective
    perception of reality, there remains essence, re-united what never
    really has been differentiated.

    Kind regards,
    Reinier.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Look What The New Netscape.com Can Do!
    Now you can preview dozens of stories and have the ones you select
    delivered to you without ever leaving the Top Home Page. And the new
    Tool Box gives you one click access to local Movie times, Maps, White
    Pages and more. See for yourself at
    http://netcenter.netscape.com/netcenter/

    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 : Mon Oct 03 2005 - 10:27:26 BST