ROGER (Parker actually) ATTEMPTS ANOTHER
CONSENSUS WITH BODVAR ON THE NATURE
OF ARISTOTLE'S SUBSTANCE
Hi Bo, Marco and Squadies,
Before we go on, I must make a disclosure to the group. My original post
this month was inspired. You see, I did a mecca. It was the Chicago jazz
festival at the beginning of the month, and my wife and I went downtown for
the weekend. And -- get this -- I wrote my Greek post at sunrise looking out
over NAVY PIER!!
Seriously though, I see us as again nearing the apex of the SOM and intellect
issue. The outstanding topic is of course the mind/matter idealism/realism
issue as it relates to Aristotle. My good friend Bo and I had the following
dialogue:
ROG:
>As I stated in my post of Sept 5th, this idealism issue is critical when
>getting our minds around the intellectual level and the ramifications of the
>logos. As long as we continue mistaking our words and concepts for "primal
>reality" we continue to live in Aristotle's world. I wrote:
BO:
I am not convinced that you pay Aristotle full justice. HE did not
mistake words and concepts for primal reality, inspired by Plato he
created the distinction between substance and form; idea and
illusion. The fact that his 'substance' was reality and 'form'
the actual animal (in Plato's cave allegory primal reality is the
idea casting an illusory shadow on the wall) isn't so important; the
metaphysical split between the two realms is the main thing!
ROG NOW RESPONDS:
Yes, 'substance' was Aristotle's concept. Before this the Greeks had the
concept of 'change' and the concept of 'being', and the concept of 'form'.
After Aristotle came the concepts of 'elements and compounds', then the
concept of 'molecules' , then the concept of atoms, then the concept of
'energy', and the concept of 'subatomic particles'. Next came the concept of
'probabilities, followed closely by the concept of 'quarks', then of
'fields', of 'interrelationships', and the current conceptual champion
'static patterns of value'.
They are concepts. IPOV's. Ghosts. None even existed before their
creation. And until the 20th century, the great minds actually even believed
that these concepts were real and 'out there'. Replacing Aristotle's
substance for subatomic fields, or replacing charriot-driving angels with
gravity doesn't elevate us above the intellectual level. It just allows us
to gain in quality. We have more elegant, more explanatory, more consistent
theories. And if history is any indication, this one will be transient too.
No Bo, substance was never 'out there' (or 'in there') for Aristotle. It was
always a theory, and it still is. It's just not a very good one any more.
BO:
The reason for my stressing that Q-intellect is not mind, but rather
the mind/matter AGGREGATE, is that (as I see the MOQ) the barking or
whinnying forms aren't DYNAMIC reality until a human being comes
along and "gives names to all the animals". They are Biological
patterns.... grandparent of Intellectual patterns!
ROG:
I have read and re-read this a dozen times, and my only explanation is that
you mistyped this. Surely you mean "Dynamic reality only becomes biological
patterns after a human being differentiates, segments, conceptualizes and
names them." Right? Biological patterns are just cuts of the intellectual
knife. Biology is derived of the intellect, not vice versa.
So where does intellect, the 'great conceptualizer' come from? From Quality.
From pure direct Dynamic and flowing reality. And when it emerged, it named
the social llevel, and it named language and it even named itself. It
differentiated, conceptualized and named 'substance' and 'dogs.' A very neat
and useful trick. But it was all a pale shadow of the flowing undivided
Dynamic reality of experience from which it arose. (Remember, reality is not
'things', it is events, or pure non-subjective experience.)
Bo:
When concluding as I will below I appeal to your collective goodwill.
Theorizing, naming - thinking - about animals and things even about
thinking itself - is not going on in an abstract sphere about
something more real in another concrete sphere. Q- INTELLECT IS THE
ABILITY TO MAKE THE BI-SPHERIC DISTINCTION ITSELF. The highest and
most valuable stage that evolution has reached - yet.
ROG:
Now here I agree 100% I don't see how it goes with what you wrote before.
BO:
My thesis is still that Intellect is SOM, but your "..judged by
quality.." bit may bridge the gap between us. SOM-as-Q-Intellect
immediately strips it of its METAPHYSICAL status. The division, be it
idea/shadow, substance/form, words/reality, mind/matter ..whatever,
is seen as the highest STATIC realm, but no longer as how existence
is constructed. For us MOQ followers the present construct is the
DQ/SQ split and that is not remotely related with those.
ROG:
As Marco stated, the DQ/sq split itself is an intellectual pattern. What
else could it be? We created this division too (is this perhaps what you
meant in the paragraph that so confused me?). Another convenient, high
quality abstraction from experience. But just as real or unreal as
phlogiston, ghosts and the 'order of monotremata'.
BICBW,
Roger Parker
PS -- I love sunrises.
***The KOAN of MOQ: Quality is undefinable; but we must define it.****
[Marco]
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT