Hello everyone On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > when I offered this idea, it wasn't in all sincerity something I actually > believed. It was what I was seeing in other's descriptions which made me > think of equating the future and DQ. I agree with you (and Pirsig) that DQ > translates to a bit more than the future. That there is a distinctive pull > toward the good as a component of reality, has been my contention here > almost from the day one. A cosmos without Quality makes as little sense as > a rollercoaster without gravity. Was how I put it once upon a time. > > This tends toward an Idealistic interpretation, that rubs many wrongly and > they think turns DQ into an object - a thing, an existant. > > However, I may offer that the following sounds quite valid, to a certain > perspective. It's certainly not ridiculous. > > > >> Dan: >> Okay: >> >> "When A. N. Whitehead wrote that "mankind is driven forward by dim >> apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language," he was >> writing about [The Future] > > > > True. For what is to be, is all in the future and what is now, cannot > comprehend tomorrow in terms of today.
Dan: But that was NOT what Whitehead was writing about. "Dim apprehensions of things" is not the future. It is the immediate present, direct experience. > > > > >> . [The Future] is the pre-intellectual >> cutting edge of reality, > > > > Especially if you're going to embrace radical empiricism - where the > tinyness of the slice of time is significant and thus the moon must be the > future, when so many fingers are pointing at it. Dan: No. Again, pre-intellectual doesn't refer to the future. It refers to the immediate present. > > > >> the source of all things, completely simple >> and always new. > > > Absolutely! By definition the future is always new. Dan: I suspect the future isn't always new. Most times, we intellectually know what the future will bring. Tomorrow, the sun will rise in the east (unless you live in the far north or south, of course) and set in the west. Most of us already have tomorrow planned out in detail. I know I tend to follow definite routines. > > > > [The Future] was the moral force that had motivated >> the brujo in Zuni. > > > > Yup. For it's the consequences in the future, that motivate all action in > the now. Dan: The future isn't a moral force. It is static intellectual quality. See Marsha's posts. > > >> [The Future] contains no pattern of fixed rewards >> and punishments. > > > > But time and chance happeneth to all. True dat. Written down in some very > old books. Dan: So it is the past? > > > >> [The Future's] only perceived good is freedom and its >> only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided >> fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of >> life." >> > > > The future is the enemy of those who live in the past. I get that. Do you? Dan: We all live in the past. That's how we intellectually experience reality... the moment past constantly remembered. I would say the future is an intellectual projection of the moment past. > > > > >> >> Dan comments: >> >> As you see, it makes very little sense to say the future is the moral >> force that motivated the Brujo. It makes very little sense to say the >> future is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality since to be >> reality it has to exist. > > > You can't get any more "pre" than the future, Dan. And the future doesn't > exist. But it will, it's definitely part of reality. It's ALL of reality! > Future reality is what we are constantly moving into and experiencing. > Experiencing it directly is a worthy goal. Dan: We never experience the future, John. It's like saying when tomorrow gets here it is tomorrow. But it isn't. It is today. Tomorrow never gets here. You assume the future will exist. There is no guarantee of that, however. We all have a limited time here. > > > >> And the future doesn't exist. The future is >> an idea we project based on our static quality history. >> >> It totally destroys what RMP is saying, in my opinion. >> >> > > In essence, I agree. I think there is more to the story. I believe DQ > contains a good-ward pull such as we experience with gravity. But still, > I'm fascinated with how well the parallels fit. Dan: Well, there's nothing wrong in advancing new ideas. But this one just doesn't work for me. > > > > > > > >> >John: >> > It even works better with Jamesian pragmatism - what is the test of the >> > good? Future experience. >> >> Dan: >> And just how does one go about testing future experience, John? Are >> you aware of what you're saying? >> >> Dan > > > > Not yet Dan. But I will someday... in the future. Dan: Are you sure? Thank you, Dan 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
