From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 02:37:47 GMT
Platt,
> > What I propose instead is to say that
> > thinking (as opposed to thoughts) and perception (as opposed to what is
> > perceived) be treated as variations on DQ/SQ, not just as SQ. One avoids
> > dualism by treating DQ/SQ as a polarity, not as two independent realms.
> > With the MOQ and with materialism there is no accounting for the sense
> > of self. With the concept of polarity. the sense of self is recognized
> > as a pole of a polarity, that is, as absolutely dependent on its
> > opposite (the sense of non-self), and so one avoids its (the self's)
> > reification (and the reification of non-self).
>
> When you say "the sense of self is recognized as a pole of a polarity"
> I wonder who is doing the "recognizing"? A higher self?
No, the self-aware self does. The same self that knows what you are
thinking. It is paradoxical only from within a strict SOM viewpoint.
>
> In holding up the sense of self and non-self for analysis, you seem to
> positing "a Quality grand vista" as Bo might put it. I wonder how you
> would describe the platform from which you can "see" the polarity of
> which you speak?
It can't be "seen" (in the sense of "understood"), because of its inner
contradiction. That is why Coleridge distinguished between "imagination" and
"understanding". Roughly, understanding, in Colerdige's terminology, can
only handle SQ. Imagination is needed for dealing with DQ/SQ polarity.
- Scott
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 Nov 07 2003 - 02:39:23 GMT