Hi dmb, agreed that we can't reject SOM and that the 'experience of not being able to walk through is more real than the "wall"'. SOM is an indispensable convention that we are hard wired with. You can't have mind without matter and vice-versa; I acknowledge spirit only in terms of intentionality. What will be the characteristics of those beings who are not limited by SOM?
-Peter 2008/7/29 david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Peter said: > SOM - mind and matter, it's more than a thinking convention; we have no > choice but to act as if it's so - just try pretending the wall isn't there > and try to walk through it, you can't. > > dmb says: > The fact that we can't walk through walls remains even if we reject SOM. > Likewise, adopting the MOQ does not entail any claims about being able to > walk through walls. Think of it in terms of reversing the relationship > between "objects" and "quality". SOM says the wall is an objective reality, > a real substance, and its properties or qualities are such that it can not > be walked through. It has hardness and flatness. It offers resistance when > we put pressure on it. The MOQ says that these qualities come first and that > the "wall" is secondary, an interpretation of the qualities felt in > experience. And of course the idea of a "wall" works well with many other > ideas such as doors and windows. (The idea of a wall also connects to paint, > to floors, ceilings, houses, gardens, towns, Berlin during the Cold War, > China during the Mongol invasions and, the line between church and state, a > place of blindfolded executions, to a lesser or greater degree, to every > other idea in the whole lang > uage system.) In the MOQ, the experience of not being able to walk through > is more real than the "wall". As in the hot stove example, the "wall" is > subsequently ascribed as the reason or cause of not being able to walk > through. Rejecting SOM in no way denies the experience from which these > ideas are derived, it is simply a matter of stepping back to see that > subjects and objects are conventional concepts, useful concepts, rather than > the starting point of reality or the cause of experience. The MOQ says that > experience comes first, that experience IS reality. In that sense, not being > able to walk through is as real as it gets. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. > > http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 > 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/
