From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 15:04:43 GMT
Scott, Paul, Case, DMB, Ant, ...
I really wish I had time to cover the background reading (Magliola
etc), but I'm still fascinated by these threads.
Scott said to Case (I think)
"I see the way the MOQ treats DQ and SQ as overly dualistic"
Somewhere else Scott used phrases like
"Nest of dualities"
"LCI involves irony and it's not actually possible to bottom out the LCI"
"The problem is a Relativist / Absolutist dichotomy"
A serious observation, I say, any attempt to "treat" anything leads to
at least one duality - thing and not-thing - and any more analysis
leads to more. These are all matters of pragmatic choice - ontology.
As DMB reminds us Pirsig's static / dynamic division of the continuum
is one suchh choice - MORE fundamental than say S/O divide, but not
"absolute".
I remember a debate before about a theory without axioms. For a theory
like MoQ the idea that everything is "relational" (rather than
relative) is axiom-like, but not absolute. Quality may be our
undivided continuum, but it must forever be undefined and experienced
undivided, unless we choose to divide it further.
For a pragmatist like me (and better read ones like Ant, Paul, DMB,
etc) this doesn't seem to be a problem. The problem seems really to be
the idea of striving to find the absolute in a metaphysics. Doomed to
stumble through a nest of dichotomies, dualities and recursions, no ?
(But surely Scot't's LCI experience says we should expect that to be
true of any metaphysics.)
Ian
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 : Sun Nov 27 2005 - 18:06:03 GMT