[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Mike and Bo,

All I was intending to point out is that most every philosophical system 
admits the inadequacy of intellect to grasp something central. With the MOQ 
it is DQ, with Christianity it is God. It seems you and Bo are thinking I'm 
trying to make some subtle point, or saying one is better than the other, 
but in this case I am not. Just pointing out that the MOQ is far from unique 
in seeing the limitations of intellect.

As to structure God/Man/Nature is a structure: an interrelated threesome, 
like DQ/SQ is a structure. Again, I meant nothing more.

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Hamilton" <thethemichael at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


On 1/8/06, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Mike said:
>
> In other words, the MOQ is where the 4th level admits its own
> inadequacy, and even creates a structure of thought to demonstrate its
> own inadequacy - in the same way as society admitted its own
> inadequacy by relaxing its powers of coercion to allow individual
> liberty - which we now can recognise was done in the service of DQ.
>
> Scott:
> Seems to me that understanding that intellect can't describe/explain
> everything has been pretty much understood since ancient times (a rare
> exception would be extreme postivists who hold that what the intellect
> cannot understand doesn't exist, or at least can be ignored). And there 
> has
> always been a structure involved, e.g., God/Man/Nature. Further, the MOQ
> does not demonstrate the inadequacy of intellect, just says there is this 
> DQ
> that is undefinable, just as Christianity has said there is this God that 
> is
> undefinable.

Hi Scott,

I think there's a great difference between saying "there's stuff out
there that our intellects cannot grasp" and saying that reality is by
definition undefinable, and therefore not entirely accessable to the
intellect. That might be irrelevant to your comment - I'd be surprised
if the former was entirely what you meant in your first sentence, but
in any case, I don't require that the MOQ is the only instance of the
understanding I'm talking about. But I doubt that the understanding
afforded by the MOQ or similar philosophies was entirely available to
the ancients - I think we may have gained a lot by passing through the
null-point of non-conscious participation before recognising
participation again. What you mean by God/Man/Nature being structures
I don't grasp, but I don't have your thorough grounding in
philosophical history.

As to your last sentence, I think that's just our different usages of
"intellect" again. For me, intellect deals with defined concepts;
thus, identifying undefinable DQ is equal to admitting the inadequacy
of intellect.

Regards,
Mike
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/