[MD] What's missing

[MarshaV]

Greetings Magnus,

"The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism. 
It claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses 
or by thinking about what the senses provide. Most empiricists deny 
the validity of any knowledge gained through imagination, authority, 
tradition, or purely theoretical reasoning. They regard fields such 
as art, morality, religion, and metaphysics as unverifiable. The 
Metaphysics of Quality varies from this by saying that the values of 
art and morality and even religious mysticism are verifiable, and 
that in the past they have been excluded for metaphysical reasons, 
not empirical reasons. They have been excluded because of the 
metaphysical assumption that all the universe is composed of subjects 
and objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an 
object isn't real. There is no empirical evidence for this assumption 
at all. It is just an assumption."  (RMP, Lila, Chapter 8)


The 'new age' label is a red herring.  It seems to me that what is 
being labeled 'new age' is that which falls outside the existing 
rules.  That gets some people nowhere.  It is into the mystic that 
one should venture.  Whether that be the mystical one, or the 
mystical many.  And an attempt to describe/explain/communicate the 
experience beyond subject/object should be attempted without the 
denigrating label 'new age'.

It's strange that I have to point to books about Buddhism, instead of 
talking about my own experiences.  Buddhism is considered 
legitimate.  My own experiences would likely be labeled 'new 
age'.  This is baloney.  The MOQ is about expanding the experience, 
not narrowing the MOQ.   Once you understand that all is analogy, 
shouldn't you consider what is beyond "the rules"?

Marsha










At 07:51 AM 3/28/2007, you wrote:
>Marsha and Bo
>
>No, you're not missing the point at all, you're head on.
>
>I had starting thinking about a "looking through a window into a house"
>metaphor, but your "pointing at the moon" captures the essence just as good.
>
>Bo is always only looking and pointing at the moon, showing how the moon has
>been considered throughout human history. He never really tries to understand
>what happens on the moon.
>
>Without going into your "mystic" portion of the MoQ (I think it's 
>important to
>keep that out of a metaphysics, otherwise you just get lots of "new age"
>accusations), we seem to have more or less the same notion of what a 
>metaphysics
>should be about.
>
>         Magnus
>
>
>
>
>
>MarshaV wrote:
> > Magnus and Bo,
> >
> > It seems you have been discussing 'pointing at the moon' versus the
> > 'the Moon'.  The MOQ as Intellectual ideas is the 'pointing to the
> > moon'.  The Moon is a place where the rules of intellect are left
> > behind.  Where a dualistic language is left behind.
> >
> > I have reconciled this by thinking of the MOQ levels as a triangle or
> > pyramid.  The mystic portion of the MOQ being the point and leading
> > edge in the Intellectual Level cutting into the future towards
> > freedom.   It's a visual that works for me.
> >
> > Bo, speak to me of the MOQ using the language of the Moon.  I've
> > asked you a few times.  Speak to me of the MOQ using a form of
> > communication that is above the Intellectual Level.
> >
> > Or am I missing both your points.
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>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/