[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[David M]

Scott

I like to think of myself as spreading a little sanity, not so
easy on the net, I find as the projections seem to be unresisted
by a blank screen.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism


> David M,
>
>> Scott:
>> As mentioned in the posts, the difference is in which evolutionary tale
>> one
>> tells. Did you catch the quote from Merrell-Wolff, about *all* objects
>> being
>> voids, having a strictly symbolic nature? That is idealism. Materialism 
>> is
>> saying that there were rocks before there was consciousness. Big
>> difference,
>> it seems to me.
>
> DM: Yeah, what's your point? Of course they're different, but I am not
> sure that you can solve the dualism by suppressing one side of the split.
> I would expect you to realise that.
>
> Scott:
> What leads you to say I am suppressing one side? I am redefining one 
> side --
> the objective -- as signs rather than objects. That's not suppression.
>
>>
>> Scott:
>> Read Wolff. It could be that which is unaffected by change.
>
> DM: You might say that was Nothing.
>
> Scott:
> As Wolff says elsewhere, from a relative (our) standpoint it is nothing.
> That's why I depend on mystics, to tell me it is Some (non-)thing.
>
>> Scott:
>> Or one cannot notice that their hardness, color, shape, etc. only exist
>> when
>> sensed.
>
> DM: Sensed? What do we mean by sense? Is the experience of
> any other not to be changed by that other? We do not observe
> unaffected, we are in constant change.
>
> Scott:
> Sensed means: seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled. And yes, as we
> sense, we are changed, but then our consciousness is relative.
>
>> DM said:
>> So guys, what's your problem? In what way do you think we currently
>> don't have a full understanding of reality, what are the key problems?
>>
>> Scott:
>> Mystics tell us we have an appearance/Reality problem. I believe them.
>
> DM: What is the problem herefor you? It is all reality and it all appears,
> is there any distinction at all. I suggest on the side of enlightenment
> there is not.
>
> Scott:
> That we are insane (out of touch with Reality). Because we are insane, we
> sin, that is, cause ourselves and one another to suffer. Now I am not 
> going
> to convince you of this. That is why I recommend reading Wolff. One note:
> the objects don't disappear on Awakening. Rather, Wolff describes it as a
> shift in the base of consciousness. As a consequence, more reality opens 
> up
> (for example, a higher, non-conceptual form of intellect), and objects are
> no longer "just there", but one becomes aware of them as signs, not as
> having inherent self-existence as, in our insane state, we think of them.
> And so forth.
>
> - Scott
>
> 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/
>