From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 12:47:42 GMT
Hi Platt, you make an interesting point ...
I see most of this thread is continuing along debating the enlightened
use of psychedelics, but along the way you said ...
"Implicit in every concept is its opposite."
For me this is the blind spot of traditional thinking, though
recognising it and combining opposites into a single whole seems to be
the way we mak useful progress.
The very idea of "concept" implies some taxonomy or ontology of what
exists using basic set theory - you're either in or you're out, set or
complement. I think Mark would say something like there is no
pre-conceptual ontology - that's our invention.
I think what we're about is emphasing the one-ness - the triplets of
interacting things, rather than their divisions as distinct things.
Just a thought.
Ian
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 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 14:34:38 GMT