From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 21:17:48 BST
Hi Platt, Matt, Steve, all
Platt said:
>In everyday living I agree with you that what we experience is largely
>determined by the static "glasses" we view the world with, those
>glasses being equivalent to a "context." But there are times, rare to be
>sure, when your glasses are suddenly and unexpectedly removed and
>all of DQ "shines through." For that moment you experience
>"transcendence" and lose you separate self sense. "Reality" becomes
>more real than real.
This is what I would deny. It may seem like you've completely taken off
static glasses and seen reality or DQ, but that's just different static
patterns, you're experiencing things culled from a venerable static history
of 'mystical experiences' that happens to people sometimes, especially after
taking peyote, etc. Sure, you can shed a lot of your stuck patterns, and
that transcendence or openness to new understanding is valuable, but it is
only transcending to a different static understanding. One with no "self
sense", perhaps, but still just as much self.
And not only would I deny that static glasses can ever be taken off, but I
deny that there is anything that could even be seen without glasses.
Static glasses (the static patterns that we personally experienced) and
contexts aren't merely something that gets in the way and distort reality, I
think they are what cause reality to come into being. Keep in mind that our
glasses are just a small part of a huge set of shared primary static
patterns and a whole lot of context, that's why we don't all create
radically separate realities, or rather, why the separate realities that we
do all create are in agreement most of the time.
Steve said:
> > Secondly, I can't really communicate my experience to you. I can use
>words
> > to describe my experience but the words that you receive from me cannot
> > recreate the experience for you. I could never buy into being "stuck
>in
> > words" because I know that I use words to point to experience, not
>merely
> > to other words.
>
>Agree. Unfortunately, postmodern types want us to live in a world of
>words rather than a world of experiencies. To them it's all about
>language, verbiage and spin. I'm with you in asserting as an undeniable
>fact that "the words you receive from me cannot recreate the experience
>for you." But to pomos, your experiences don't count. It's what your
>group agrees on that's more meaningful that your personal experience.
>If you happen to disagree with the group, you're brushed off as
>"outdated" and "useless."
I think we just see that experiences are experienced by one consciousness
only, a quality event is shared only if people have the same static patterns
in place with which to share it in the same way. That's why I believe that
we should pay more attention to sharing static patterns and agreeing about
morality, rather than thinking that it doesn't matter and saying all are as
good as any other.
> > You don't want to live with the contradiction of "absolutely no
>absolutes."
> > Matt is okay with that contradiction. He will continue denying that he
> > ever made such a claim or that such a claim is implicit in his
>philosophy .
>
>True. But keep in mind that Matt doesn't believe in objective truth.
>
> > Matt's philosophy disallows a primary context, a context of not having a
> > context, i.e. DQ, or the possibility of becoming free of all static
> > patterns. He's not willing to live with such a contradiction as a
>point
> > of view of not having a point of view. You seem to be okay with this
> > contradiction.
>
>I don't see a contradiction. A point of view only occurs when the view is
>conceptualized. Prior to concepts (and words expressing those
>concepts) is a world of pure direct experience--the primary "context" if
>you will. As you correctly point out, language is derivative from
>experience. Those who see language as the end all and be all live in a
>second-hand world of "vocabularies" and group identities. They never
>experience the reality which "passeth all understanding" because if they
>admitted to such a reality, their argot world would crumble.
>
>Platt
I think we say that the realities we experience are the same whether we are
pomo or not. As Jonathan Edwards said, things are as they appear to be.
Nothing changes when you move from things appearing as they really are to
things really being as they appear.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
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 Apr 16 2003 - 21:18:13 BST