David Morey said:
'Thanks Dave that is great,? George's Grammars of Creation is a great
book about transcendence if you fancy it,? all about the need to think
about what may or may not lie beyond experience and how important this
has been in human culture,...'
Andre:
Lie 'beyond' experience? You sound like Marsha who tried to find out
what lay 'beyond' the MoQ. And you call that 'An interesting work that
could, given an open mind,? help develop the MOQ beyond some of its
self-imposed limitations as I see it'.
It would appear, as you phrase it, that the MoQ has 'self-imposed
limitations' and that there must be something lying beyond it.
Which limitations of the MoQ? are you thinking of David? And what could
be lying 'beyond' the MoQ?
Within this context let's look at what Phaedrus suggests in ZMM:
'All the time we are aware of millions of things around us...We could
not possibly conscious of these things and remember all of them because
our mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable to
think. From all this awareness we must select, and what we select and
call consciousness is never the same as awareness because the process
mutates it. We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of
awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world'.(ZMM p75)
In LILA the terms have changed but my take on the last line from ZMM and
transposing that into MoQ terms is: We take a handful of sand (static
patterns of value)from the endless landscape of awareness (Quality) and
call that handful of sand the world (the MoQ). In other words awareness
is Quality and what we call consciousness are the static patterns of
value derived from that Quality.
That 'deriving from'...that 'abstracting from'...is the Quality event.
It is the /cause /of consciousness...the subjects and objects we
deduce...the static patterns of value. The static patterns of value are
'in' this awareness as much as that the MoQ is the ink on the page
called Quality. Quality has the MoQ. Awareness has consciousness. And,
we can understand Quality, call it non-duality to also 'have' SOM
(duality). It can simply 'contain' it without any contradiction, to be
used whenever it is pragmatically useful to do so.
It seems that this is quite consistent with the MoQ as well as all the
perennial philosophy books I have read.
Anyway, this is my take on it. If there are any serious issues with this
I'd like to hear them.
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
