Hello Magnus. > > Re: What the MoQ recognizes. Are you saying there exists a definitive and > > documented MoQ? > > No, I'm afraid it doesn't, but I'm pretty sure most of the people here would > agree that what the 4 static levels are supposed to describe, are 4 > distinctly > different kinds of reality. The reality of the ball and the reality of the > feeling of the ball will fall in 2 different kinds of reality, but both are > just > as real. That's one of the key differences between the MoQ and for example > idealism, which only recognizes one kind of reality. I don't advocate idealism. But I do believe reality is one not many. I would say the appearance of separate realities is an illusion based on perspective. By the way, I see again you used the word "recognize" to describe the MoQ. At first I took it to be a figure of speech. But now you've got me wondering. Do you see the MoQ as something more than an intellectual conception? > What we're mostly arguing about, is how to divide these 4 kinds of reality, > and > it has proved to be pretty hard since each of us discusses them from one's > own > understanding of them, which in turn makes it hard to understand eachother's > arguments. Yes. This is metaphysics. It's been mentioned before but I think Gödel's theory of incompleteness suggests a good approach; you can have consistency or completeness but not both. And it hints at the impossible challenge of subsuming that which, through differentiation, is excluded. In other words, how would the MoQ explain the inability of its advocates to agree on its definition? > > I mean that an individual's reality is defined by his or her relationships > > with > > other people and the things and ideas that affect him or her. I get the > > sense > > from some here that there exists a reality in which individuals are like > > isolated intellects, affected by nothing but their own thoughts. For me > > there > > is nothing real about that. For me, people affect and are affected by > > others > > and other things. There's a bit of SOM in this. And there's a bit of > > incarnational mysticism in it too. > > I agree with you on this one. In my view, the ideas you talk about that > affect > other people, are intellectual patterns that, when you read about it, causes > an > intellectual quality event that may or may not strike you as good. Either > way, > you are somewhat affected by it. But I'm not sure I understand why it would > be > SOM nor mysticism? Right. Better, for consistency's sake, for me to say it's all incarnational mysticism. The SOM perspective may feel real but it's just an illusion. It's difficult for me to talk about it in these terms. I prefer the languge of Merton and Rohr. That is, I approach reality from my True Self _and_ from my False Self. My True Self sees and relates to the wholesness and oneness of reality. My False Self, because of its preoccupation with differentiation and calculation, sees differences and separateness. In MoQ-ese I suppose the True Self would be undifferentiated existence.
Kevin --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. 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/
