From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 16:13:55 BST
Hi Scott
> I think this needs partial correction. I understand
> "figuration" *as*
> perception, not as happening "along with"
> perception. That is, it is the
> process that turns what Barfield calls "the
> particles" -- e.g., the photons,
> air vibrations, etc., into things moving in space.
> But yes, it can be
> considered as a kind of thinking, and, most
> importantly, can and has changed
> over the centuries.
Fair enough, in this post I was using Barfield as a
means to an end to help describe the way I feel the
MoQ fits into my thinking.
> Good analogy, except that we *can* with some
> difficulty see the black on
> white patterns, but we cannot experience the
> particles.
You're right, it's only an analogy, I thought it might
help demonstrate what I meant by 'figuration' in this
post, I can see it's not identical to what Barfield
means.
> I would put it as: figuration is (since about 1500
> AD) completely void
> (consciously) of participation. Translation: we
> perceive objects independent
> of ourselves as subjects. SOM is the beta-thinking
> that results from taking
> this situation as absolute. (Science is the
> alpha-thinking that results.)
Agreed.
> > I don't know if it's possible to deliberately and
> > permanently change your 'figuration', I suspect it
> is.
>
> That's what mystics do, at least in the sense of
> coming to realize
> (experience) figuration's contingency. (Also,
> psychedelic drugs might be
> said to temporarily change one's figuration, but
> without necessarily
> breaking one's S/O preconceptions, which is why they
> are as likely to be
> harmful as beneficial.)
But in experiencing figuration's contingency, is
figuration necessarily permanently changed?
> > My general feeling right now is that it is a
> gradual
> > thing and that, using Barfield terms, maybe the
> MoQ
> > needs to start as beta-thinking and slowly move
> across
> > into alpha-thinking and begin to seep into
> figuration
> > completely over the next few hundred years.
>
> Socially, yes. Individually, one can hope for faster
> results.
Mysticism?
> The real
> question in my mind is how soon Western
> institutional religions will catch
> on to this. It is, in my opinion, their only viable
> option to modern, and
> postmodern, secularism.
Is it only religion that needs to catch on?
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
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 : Fri May 02 2003 - 16:14:38 BST