From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 13:54:37 BST
Dear Wim,
> Dear Platt,
> You wrote 03 Sep 2003 11:22:31 -0400:
> 'I agree to DQ being the "life force". I don't see how we can help not
> labelling such beliefs "anthropomorphic" because all beliefs, by
> definition, are human-centered.'
>
> I didn't state '"DQ = life force' should not be (labelled as) an
> anthropomorphic belief', but 'the concept "life force" should not be
> understood as anthropomorphic'. Self-consciousness, knowing one's self,
> implies the possibility to deny/avoid/negate one's self and its human
> forms. Knowing what's human, we can create concepts and statements that
> aren't.
Is not your argument is based on the S/O division, a concept of self
and not-self? I guess I'm coming from a values perspective where
anthropomorphism is a questionable concept because it presumes the S/O
division. My response was too hasty in that I jumped to the MOQ
assumption of direct aesthetic experience prior to beliefs, and then
assumed the experience in question would necessarily be my own as a
human being.
> I wrote:
> 'I agree for evolution at the 4th level up till the rational level [that
> expansion of consciousness is essential], but I think humanity can and
> does go beyond.'
>
> You asked:
> 'How so?'
>
> Expansion of consciousness has biological and social limits (we need
> sleep, we can't consciously process all sensory stimuli, the expansion
> of consciousness in certain directions is socially unacceptable etc.).
> Evolution at the 4th level beyond its sublevel where (ever better)
> ego-organization guides progress, has no such limits any more (or the
> 4th level would not be discrete, but fully describable in terms of
> biological and social processes).
Beyond rational? OK. I agree we can gain knowledge that rationality
cannot access. How? Primarily through contemplation.
> You wrote:
> 'Purpose of life, it's creation, maintenance, and expansion.'
>
> I repeat my question: Whose purpose? I don't know an answer. If there is
> no answer, it is not an anthropomorphic 'purpose', I'd say. And then,
> yes, it is acceptable for me as an alternative explanation for
> evolution, a better one than scientific oopsism.
I repeat. Life's purpose. Recall Pirsig saying in Lila that the MOQ had
no argument with teleological theories. We humans, as creations and
embodiments of the "life force," might be guilty of anthropomorphism by
granting a purpose to the world. But then again, maybe not. After all,
we are part of that "world." We live in the paradox of "separate from
others but never apart." Wherever we go, the world goes with us.
Regards,
Platt
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 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 13:59:55 BST