Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:00:13 +0100
Sat, 14 Mar 1998 10:42:25 +0100
Magnus Berg (>) wrote to Anthony McWatt (>>)
> > .......... "You" and the new "Idea" are the following:
> >1. Both the colliding atoms are inorganic static patterns
> > of Value,
> >2. "You" are a collection of inorganic, organic, social and
> > intellectual static patterns of Value and
> >3. The "idea" is an intellectual static pattern of
> > value. (Moreover, keep in mind that there has to be
> > another person, directly or indirectly, where this new
> > idea comes from, it just doesn`t appear in thin air out
> > on its own.
> I agree completely, but I can't repeat that in each and every
> post. Atoms, persons and ideas are, like subject and object,
> usable terms. We all know what these terms mean in MoQese.
> There's a difference between being submerged in SOM and
> using practical SOM terms.
> >Doug makes the related point "that in classical SOM
> >science assumes, objectively, that an object
> >may be isolated from its environment (while) ...MoQ shows
> >us that static patterns of value (SPoVs) are co-within
> >Dynamic Quality. SPoVs are inseparable from: DQ and other
> >SPoVs in DQ".
Hi Magnus and Squad.
I cut into this interesting dialogue because I see an oportunity to
wield my "SOM as Intellect" idea. I agree with you both, but
from different reasons. In para. 2 Anthony makes the correct
observation that "you" are a collection of value patterns, but in a
retort you asked who the "you" of the same sentence were, and this is
also an ineradicable problem.
You, Magnus, haven't yet passed judgement on my brainchild, while
Anthony, Doug and Hugo has (tentatively) rejected it, but IMHO it can
solve this riddle. In paragraph 3. Anthony says: "..the idea is an
Intellectual pattern", and you allow: "..subjects and objects are
usable terms". Right, but terms are ideas and ideas - isn't that
'the subjective' as opposed to 'the objective' which together makes
up the SOM?
In the quoted pasage Doug says:" Sience assumes objectivity, that an
object may be isolated...etc", but it also assumes a subject observing
things and events. If the SOM-as-Intellect connection is made things
fall in place. Humans focus (mostly) at the Intellectual level and
(seen as SOM) it's no wonder we can't avoid the subjects and object.
the division is Intellect.
But this is not reintroducing SOM. It is degrading it from staus as
reality itself to another MOQ value "dimension". A windfall value is
that it once and for all defines the Intellectual level (I have the
impression that we gave it up). SOM is safe under MOQ's greater
unbrella, and needn't be fought off as an enemy (while we still use
its terms). Remember the slash-and-burn of the competing
anthropological theories in LILA? This prevents MOQ from doing away
with SOM, it becomes a prominent, but "dearmed" part of the MOQ.
Enough for now. I'll return to Doug's, Anthony's and Hugo's responses
in separate posts.
Bo
PS. There was a message from you this morning that reviews the
SAIOM idea, I'll have to study it a little more before
commenting.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST