Re: MD MOQ in time and space

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 16:11:06 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD MOQ in time and space"

    Hello Reinier

    3 July you wrote:

    > Yes, I've seen some discussions in which SOM gradually developed as
    > the intellectual level, and to be honoust, I have my doubts with that.
    > But anyway, it does not influence my PoV towards space

    Please enlarge on your doubts about SOM=the intellectual level.
    From a particular statement below it looks like you agree.

    Bo earlier:
    > >SOM is abandoned when the "M" is taken over by the MOQ, but I
    > >hope you don't mean that the S/O divide is to be abandoned,
    > >because that is the intellectual level IMO? Geometric space as
    > >different from ordinary space? You must elaborate.

    Reinier:
    > Yes, the S/O division must be abandoned

    Well it all depends on what one sees S/O as. To me it is intellect
    itself which was SOM before the MOQ. Afterwards it's just S/O
    and can as little be removed as social value can.

    > or else you keep
    > intellectualizing about MOQ in a SO-way.

    Exactly! This is what I have been telling this discussion for God
    knows how many years. They keep intellectualizing about the
    MOQ ...which to me means they haven't got out of SOM!

    > By geometric space I mean
    > dimensional space I guess. That what's commenly understood as the
    > universe, without substance in it.

    I see and agree.

    Bo earlier:
    > >Yes, as a metaphysics SOM is contradictory, but as a static value it
    > >is great.

    Reinier:
    > But we can't say on a metaphysical level, let's get rid of it, but we
    > keep it as static intellectual pattern because we have no alternative.

    "On a metaphysical level" ...means from the MOQ? The MOQ
    has stripped SOM of its metaphysical "M" and left it as its own
    intellectual level. That can be done and MUST be done to
    prevent what you said above: Intellectualizing about the MOQ.

    Reinier:
    > 'Too weird' has never been an argument against a philosofical theory
    > ;-)

    My fault. John Wheeler (him with the multiverses) said: "Weird
    but not weird enough!"

    Bo before:
    > >I would rather say that time and space in themselves (not the
    > >scientific - maybe this is your "geometric" - kind) are as much
    > >inorganic patterns as particles and forces.

    Reinier
    > Whereas I think time and space are the results of the SO PoV that
    > krept into every organism in the organic level and above.

    Well, uppercase Time & Space are surely S/O, but lowercase
    time and space are inorganic patterns

    Bo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 17:10:50 BST