Hi Peter, I am one of the others. Good to hear from you!
Joe On 4/12/08 3:28 AM, "Peter Corteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Bo and Matt and others, > > Matt's definition rings some bells with some thoughts I had: religion is old > fashioned science, and after Matt, religion is metaphysics. > I'm just questioning - not saying it is so - I don't want to push myself to > clarify that. Matt's definition of metaphysics as a general framework > however reduces it from a field of study to just another name for a person's > momentary mindset, something that changes as that person's moment to moment > situation changes. > > I would say that the mindset becomes metaphysics when a person starts to > reason about their situation and begins to develop an approach or attitude > (even the attitude 'no attitude' - Book of Five Rings) they intend to carry > into their future. > > Bo, the artifacts left by the dead and those arranged in tombs to > commemorate them is a signature of their self-consciousness. The idea that > their self-consciousness indicated an eternal life manifested temporarily in > a physical body however, would have been too complicated for them; I think > the life eternal was invented as a comforting metaphysics only to give > reason to the suffering of life and to avoid the apparent futility of > living. In the end we can only guess about how our ancestor's thought, and > today, though conversation with people in the religious mindset is available > nevertheless it does not seem to clarify our new metaphysics. > > If Pirsig's four levels are seen as evolving levels of being just as some > apes may now have intimations of self awareness so we must begin to ask what > may be the characteristics of a possible fifth level; certainly an openness > to what Doris Lessing called the substance of 'We' feeling and also, I > suggest, a new way of thinking that seeks to re-incorporate the mind with > the body. > > -Peter > > > > On 12/04/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 6 Apr 2008 at 15:49, Matt Kundert wrote: >> >>> My two definitions: >> >>> 1) Metaphysics is the general framework, or understanding, or set of >>> assumptions, that people unconsciously (with various degrees of >>> self-consciousness) interpret, or see, or live in the world. As an >>> activity, it is the attempt to make the unconscious self-conscious >>> (this activity is also known in some circles as "philosophy"). >> >> Talking to Matt is a safe sport, no disturbing replies. However his >> definition (#1) is pretty good, only I can't get it basic enough. >> Even Pirsig's "..no-one living in an ordered universe can avoid >> metaphysics" should have omitted "ordered" because human >> beings invariably order existence - that's their hallmark. Thus >> even the old mythologies were metaphysics in this extended >> sense. >> >> An aside): Because only human beings has entered the Q-social >> level and a mythology requires language I wonder if not language >> and the social level are intimately connected. A chicken & egg >> relationship. From now on I use that as my premises. >> >> It's said that the first registered burial rituals is a sign - not only of >> a notion of an existence beyond, but of an EXISTENCE at all, but >> as sure is it that early humankind didn't invent the beyond as a >> comfort against their fear of death, rather that the existence >> beyond was what confirmed an existence here. Anyone >> understand the the immensity of this point? >> >> As I see it, MOQ's message is that each static level is the >> creation of a reality different from the one before it and the social >> level was a shift from biology's non-existential existence (death >> no issue as an "idea") to one of eternal existence (death as a >> mere transition to another realm) Thus when the 4th level >> emerged with its objective outlook that gave death a final "fall >> from the rim of existence" quality) social value attained a >> "paradise lost" quality for many. >> >> This I believe was behind Phaedrus' identifying the old Aretê with >> Value itself, and his hatred of SOM that destroyed it. In MOQ this >> is the social-intellectual transition and my above explains why >> intellect looks so "valueless" (to regard intellect this way is wrong >> but enough for now). I just wonder why Pirsig so patently refuses >> to compare ZAMM with the MOQ and so mysteriously downplays >> the SOM. >> >> Anyway. I also believe this to be behind other attempts to >> systematize the upheaval around this time in history it, for >> instance Owen Barfield's "Participation Scheme" that fits >> uncannily with MOQ's social - intellectual stages and because >> Barfield postulates a "resumption of participation" fits with the >> MOQ itself, i.e. a return to the holistic "social" view ... although at >> a higher plane. >> >>> 2) Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that attempts to display >>> the basic, universal, ahistorical underpinnings of reality (this >>> activity is also sometimes known in some circles as "Platonism," and >>> in a few circles the acronymic "SOM"). >> >> This resembles Pirsig's about the MOQ as a mere theory about >> the "Quality Reality" that can be divided any way and still be >> good. Something I deeply disagree with. >> >> Bo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
