From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 16:50:55 BST
Reinier --
I hope you'll find this message, as I'm posting it under the more
appropriate new heading.
As I see it, we agree on the following assertions:
> There can be no existence without Essence.
> But the question 'does actuality exists' is an existential question
> about existence. A question like 'how long does time last' or
> 'how big is space'. It's a snake eating its own tail.
> So for me the whole question is a false starting point.
> Essence is the whole of everything but un-valued.
> Existence is valueing and thus differentiating.
> The potential is timeless and spaceless, it's only our realization
> of it that creates time and space.
> There is no such thing as substance.
I have a problem with this one, however:
> Even without a single living creature, the process of valueing
> existed. Awareness may involve valueing on an intellectual
> level, but valueing as such, by Pirsig's words, takes place
> on all levels. Pre-intellecutal existence, so to say.
This throws a monkey-wrench into our discussion. You are reciting the
official MoQ doctrine which I reject, since to me "intellect" is not a level
but a faculty of the human individual. What you're now spouting is the
"rocks experiencing rocks" notion of Matt, DMB, et al.
Back on 9/29 you said:
> I think we're pretty far in reaching positive consensus. As for the
> value-part of it. I think that word becomes meaningless in relation to
> Essence. Or to speak in MoQ terms: value is an attribute of SQ not of
> DQ. Value you'll find in existence not in Essence.
If Value is an attribute of SQ not DQ, and is found in existence rather than
in Essence, it requires "awareness", which as you say "is responsible for
the subject/object division." You cannot have a subject/object division
without a subject. Patterns or not, a rock is not a subject but an object.
Even the MoQ concedes this in the sense that experience divides (hence
"creates") all reality. So, unless you want to argue for an OOM philosophy,
inert objects cannot realize or experience Value.
> Regarding the SOM reference, I guess this is what Bo means when he
> states that the intellectual level is SOM. Any thought or idea comes
> from a subject, regarding itself as such.
What is "a subject regarding itself as such"? If this is Bo's reference to
individual "self-awareness", I'm with him. If he's talking about an idea
regarding itself, ("rock" as an "idea", for example), I'm lost.
> The awareness is responsible
> for the subject/object division.
> Indeed the buddhistic enlightment experience will
> overcome this, and are you sceptical about that?
Yes. I'm not a practitioner of "The Middle Way", nor are most of the MoQ
people I talk to. So I don't see Buddhistic enlightenment as a likely
future for the MoQ. This is not to question the value of that approach;
however, an important part of my own philosophy is that we're here for a
purpose, and it is very much concerned with how we deal with our physical
reality. All this talk about reality being "imaginary" and of no
consequence does little to help us confront the life-experience. In my
opinion, man was not meant to dabble in mysticism and drug-induced states of
mind.
> Quantum physics is leaning very close towards a patterned description of
> the universe, likewise is eastern mysticism.
The human intellect is equipped with sufficient reason to work out all the
answers necessary to accomplish this purpose. I don't rely on quantum
physics in searching out the truth of reality. Metaphysics is good enough
for me.
> The hot-stove example is misleading, because it very much emphasizes
> that kind of valueing. Like/dislike type of valueing. My concept of
> valueing is more in the lines of X is NULL versus X = true or false.
> Once something has a value, it's known, it can be separated from other
> things that have value.
Since you place Essence in the NULL category, does this mean we can't
determine whether the Primary Source is true or false? If so, it supports
my theory that man is free to choose to believe or not believe. I've
previously said that if proof of absolutes were accessible to man, he would
not be a free agent. Do you accept this premise?
I'll give some more thought to your "existential question about existence"
idea as it relates to pre-temporal existence. It's possible that I have not
thought this through, and that any "gap" ascribed to existence is an
intellectual construct. This would mean that in reality (i.e., in Essence)
there is no "before", hence to think of physical reality as "coming into
existence" prior to its being experienced may be fallacious. (As you can
see, I'm still struggling with this concept.)
Thanks for your continuing support, Reinier.
Regards,
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 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 18:48:21 BST