From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Jul 27 2003 - 10:11:29 BST
Rick and All
Rick said:
>You can call me an SOMer and insult my understanding of the MoQ
>all you'd like Bo (you're not going to call me a racist next, are you?),
>but it won't change the fact that you still haven't answered the
>question, which was, "How can a description be the ultimate
>reality?" Can you answer that please? Because until you can show
>it's coherent (in any sense) to think that the ultimate reality is a
>description, your restaurant is serving menus instead of food.
I'm not out to insult, just to do some logic surveying. Someone
devoted to a religious faith would surely agree - any insist - that the
Holy Scripture is a "description" of the inner reality, but as outsiders
we see that it is one and the same. That's why I find your insistence
on the description/reality ("ultimate" for good measure) a bit naive.
Look to Scott's deep-propbing discurse on this issue.
Rick
>No Bo. "[The MoQ] simply restates the empiricists' belief that
>EXPERIENCE is the starting point of all reality (emphasis added)."
>Not inorganic patterns. He says that the idea that the inorganic
>universe chronologically precedes the other levels is simply a high
>quality intellectual pattern (see letter to A.McWatt, "Among these
>patterns is the intellectual pattern that says 'there is an external world
>of things out there which are independent of intellectual patterns'.
>That is one of the highest quality intellectual patterns there is. And in
>this highest quality intellectual pattern, external objects appear
>historically before intellectual patterns... But this highest quality
>intellectual pattern itself comes before the external world, not after,
>as is commonly presumed by the materialist.").
Experience= Reality =Quality translates into "Reality the starting point
of all reality" and doesn't say much. Once the MOQ premise is
accepted, the staring point of the STATIC sequence is the inorganic
universe, to say that MOQ (where DQ is reside) - is a STATIC
(intellectual) pattern is a negation of itself. And what does the letter
quote say? (my brackets)
> And in this highest quality intellectual pattern (SOM), external >objects (matter) appear historically before intellectual (mind) >patterns... But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself (SOM) >comes before the external world, not after, as is commonly presumed >by the
materialist.".
This is the impossible exercise of keeping both SOM and MOQ going
AS METAPHYSICS inside the mind-intellect (which becomes "our
mind" as in SOM) something that makes the MOQ a branch of
SOM's idealism which claims that mind is the primary reality. The
materialists are easily enough deposed, but in ZMM it's the idealists
who are the tough nuts, and here the annotator plays straight into
their hands.
Rick.
>It 'must be cut down to size' because it's 'too narrow'? That's a new
>one on me Bo. Has it occurred to you yet that if you just drop the 'Q-
>Intellect = SOL' the 4th level will no longer be "too narrow"?
OK, a bad formulation. Q-intellect must be cut down to a STATIC level
which is its true role, while keeping the mind-definition makes it a the
DYNAMIC realm that contains everything and everything become
"intellectual patterns" which is back in SOM's idealist camp..
Rick
> Well that's your problem right there Bo. Just because Values play a
>primary role in the MoQ doesn't mean the MoQ=Values. This would
>be like reasoning that since your heart plays a primary role in your
>body, your body = your heart; Or that since an engine plays a
>primary role in a motorcycle, a motorcycle = an engine. The MoQ is
>not identical with the values which it purports to describe.
This ist the opening argument again.
Rick
> Did I imply that? Where?
In the previous (July 21) message where you said
> > The MoQ (just like everything else) is a *species* of value.
> > It's a static, intellectual, pattern of value.
I thought "everything else" included the SOM and that SOM (in your
opinion) is about a value divided into subjects and objects ... which is
not the case, but OK I may be wrong about (your opinion on) that.
Sincerely.
Bo
PS about something else:
There is a book, a novel. Some time ago - this spring I believe - it was
much talked about, a bestseller, long reviews etc. It's about life in New
York after the known incident. Can't remember the author's name or
title. Does this ring any bells for you or anyone else?
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 Jul 27 2003 - 10:13:15 BST