Hello everyone
>From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
>Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 15:34:23 EDT
>
>To: Dan and Marco
>
>Dan, would you review my answers to Marco and comment please. Most of your
>response is on Marco's commentary about absurdity and all, but I would like
>to know what you think about his specific statements. This might get us
>beyond some initial misunderstandings. In general, I have supported most
>of
>your prior comments on the topic, but I don't find any obvious fault with
>Marco's current summaries as follows:
>
>MARCO:
>The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and
>economy of explanation». That's right, even the idea that the Earth goes
>round
>the Sun is not in agreement with experience, but at least they have offered
>an
>economic explanation for that. But saying that the plant I'm looking at
>exists
>only in my mind ("There is no other reality"... ) lacks of all these
>basilar
>factors.
>
>ROG:
>Agreed. It is not a very good assumption to theorize that everything is in
>your mind. The best assumption for daily life is probably to believe that
>subjects and objects are discrete entities. It is just an assumption that
>we
>derive from experience though. Objective plants are "distinguishable
>things"
>that are derived from primary experience and passed on in our culture.
Hi Marco and Roger
Since experience is value, that must be the starting point. Again, I did not
say the plant exists only in my mind. We who are somewhat familiar with the
MOQ should by now know that the self is made up of patterns of value
consisting of four (2 subjective and 2 objective) levels, plus undefined
Dynamic Quality. The notion of plants as objects is a high quality
intellectual pattern of value, and that is what we are dealing with here. A
plant is a biological pattern of value which we have no method of directly
observing other than through our senses. There may well be a real plant
outside the window but we cannot value that kind of reality directly. We
value reality through our senses and that always involves conceptualizing.
Value is the starting point.
>
>MARCO:
>Assumptions. The MOQ also is an idea, an assumption. The MOQ assumption
>tells
>that the plant exists thanks to biological patterns of value, using the
>inferior
>inorganic level as support. The MOQ assumption tells that those kinds of
>patterns have existed in times before any social patterns and any
>intellectual
>assumptions. So, IMHO assuming that plants are assumptions of my mind, and
>NOT
>independent biological and inorganic patterns of value, it is also assuming
>that
>the MOQ is wrong. It is well legal, BUT IT IS NOT MOQ.
>
>ROG:
>I think I agree with what you have written here too. Just remember that
>the
>MOQ seeks the highest quality intellectual explanation with the knowledge
>that it must be taken provisionally.
I think the core of disagreement seems to be whether the plant really exists
or not. It is my interpretation that the MOQ states if the plant has value,
it exists. There is nothing more we can say about it. There is no "real"
plant behind the notion of "plant" we have in our mind for that notion is as
real as it gets. Assuming assumptions would seem to take us further away
rather than drawing us closer to reality.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:29 BST