Hey Guys, The disagreement between Platt and Ian over Sheldrakes quote shows the fundamental instability of the humanistic ground motive which is based on the nature-freedom idea. And as I mentioned before this is largely borrowed from the Greek matter-form ground motive.
The problem is that Ian's contention of everything being energy or a condensation of it, does not leave room for the very idea, the very law he is expressing. So modern science, based on the humanistic ground motive has led us to an impasse. And this is what P thought he was solving with Moq. I believe he would affirm what both Ian and Platt said and affirm that Moq covers both cases. I disagree. Sheldrake was talking about the paradigm of modern science and modernism where the changeless was explained away, the changeless in terms of an absolute changelessness. And Matt, changelessness, or the eternal is one of those archetypes of modernism I was speaking of, derived from God's nature. And the with our new paradigm in science and the rest of culture what we have is absolute changlessness being abandoned, and explained away in terms of an absolute change. This is what moq does, it absolutizes change. Even if change is supposed to freeze as sq, it is only relative, not eternal. The absolute principle here is Change. This, Matt, again is one of the archetypes of this age-change-and it is traceable back from physics to philosophy to theology, as was the case with the paradigm of modernism. My next post in this thread will be a post on the German philosophers and the influence of theology on their thought, which is where Ian's ideas, and Pirsig's came from. Thanks, Jon On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Bennett Jon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > Thanks for your responses. I've been busy and don't have much time now. > > Let me start with Ian's post. Keep in mind that Sheldrakes's quote was > speaking to the understanding of scientific law as understood in mechanistic > science. This came the model for understanding all law in the modern era, > which is what P refers to when speaking of classical thought. > > It is true that Ian's idea corresponds more to the new understanding of > scientific law, or truth generally, in the post modern era. This notion > parallels and was in fact derived from what P refers to as romanticism. > Both understandings of science and reality are grounded, or have roots, in > theological thought. That's what I will try to show as we go. > > But Ian P's idea of quality was developed precisely to overcome the idea > that all things are energy, in whatever form. That's the whole point of moq, > that this definition is insufficient. > > Matt, I agree with your comments about an open mind. Every view is closed > to some view. I agree that Jung was a platonist, really a neoplatonist and > his thought is very similar to P's. I do not mean Jungian or Platonic > archetypes. I simply mean that there are certain fundamental ideas at work > in every age, and that those ideas have a kind of primary category from > which they all are descended. Let's call them heaven and earth, or as we go, > I want to share with you my thoughts on solar and lunar mythic systems and > the philosophies they spawn. > > But to start with I am arguing that there exist certain ages in history. > I'm in agreement with P on this. There are certain knowable, > characterizable, definable ages in the history of the West. I agree we are > leaving one age and going into another, along with P. I disagree with his > characterizations and solutions. > > The age we are now in defies paradigms, metaphysics or absolute knowledge > of any kind. It is a non-paradigmatic paradigm, so to speak as it has > negation and paradox built into it. This is largely what is meant by a lunar > mythic or philosophical system. So it does not surprise me that you don't > like facts or definitions. Let me ask you, do believe there are absolute > facts? But all of this is understandable and predictable and even called for > by our current paradigm. We've seen it before in history whenever Eastern > thought, or neoplatonic religion and philosophy are dominant-whenever the > Creator-creation distinction is ignored. > > Beyond that Ham, I didn't really understand your criticism or what you mean > by historicism. I'm usually accused of historcism. > > And don't confuse my own ideas with Dooyeweerd's philosophy, although I > think them compatible. I'd like to discuss Newton, Sorokin and DW more as we > progress in relation to P. > > And Ham to answer your question, the transcendental principle that is > tripping you up is the nature-freedom ground motive of the Renaissance, > which is where P looked for inspiration. And it is traceable back to ancient > Greece (another place P looked for inspiration) and their matter-form ground > motive, and is but another expression of it. You are on the freedom, or > matter pole of these gm's, I believe, and ignoring the nature, form aspect > that allows you to see or be satisfied with one, uniform explanation. You > are lost in the land of the many. Sorry I don't have time to develop the > gm's in more detail now. > > Also, regarding ages, or any definition, there are levels on which they > appear different. Think of a rainbow. Up close with a rainbow, or history, > you can't see where one color or age blends into another. But with a longer > broader view you can see distinct pattern, and order, in a rainbow and in > history. > > And not to leave out X Acto. Every time I read one of your posts, I'm > reminded of the Bible verse in the Proverbs that says: > "A fool hath no desire in learning, but to express his own heart" > > Thanks to everyone, > Jon > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ian Glendinning < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Beg to differ Platt, >> >> All things consist of energy or its fossilized remains ... we call it >> Quality (Dynamic and static) >> >> Ian >> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Excellent quote from Sheldrake. The scientific theory that all consists >> of >> > matter and energy consists of neither matter nor energy. >> > >> > >> > On 27 Apr 2010 at 20:18, Jon Bennett wrote: >> > >> >> Rupert Sheldrake puts it like this, >> >> >> >> "Although many people no longer believe in such a God, his universal >> laws >> >> have survived him to this day. But when we pause to consider the nature >> of >> >> these laws, they rapidly become mysterious. They govern matter and >> motion, >> >> but they are not themselves material nor do they move. They cannot be >> seen >> >> or weighed or touched; they lie beyond the realm of sense experience. >> They >> >> are potentially present everywhere and always. They have no physical >> source >> >> of origin. Indeed, even in the absence of God, they still share many of >> his >> >> traditional attributes. They are omnipresent, immutable, universal, and >> >> self-subsistent. Nothing can be hidden from them, nor lie beyond their >> >> power." >> > >> > >> > >> > 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/md/archives.html >> > >> 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/md/archives.html >> > > 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/md/archives.html
