Dear all
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
> Dear MOQ Discussion group (Lila Squad)
> So many interesting inputs have arrived recently that I'll hav to
> make a sweep-up (I know I'm not called upon to comment on everything
> but bear with me).
>
> DIANA MCPARTLIN wrote:
> > Suppose you are trying to convince someone of the MoQ. It's quite
> > easy to show that there is something like value or art that can't be
> > explained rationally. However people usually just dismiss that as
> > subjectivity. To demonstrate that value is not subjective you have
> > to prove that it exists outside of the subject. And in the som the
> > only place that isn't subject-territory is the world of objects,
> > specifically matter.
>
> > If you can prove (in an som context) that DQ exists in both the
> > subject and the object then the subject-object metaphysics
> > collapses, because in the subject-object metaphysics you cannot have
> > a phenomenon that exists in both categories - and the only solution
> > to it is to conclude that the categories are wrong.
>
> Excellent point Diana, but I have a hunch that this strategy will
> fail and the reason is that Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM) is a MOQ
> term! As we know from Strawson-like statements nobody subscribes to
> SOM, there are only subjectivists in countless guises
> (idealists, spiritualists, spiritists..etc) or objectivists in as
> many dis-guises, (logical positivists, materialists, sceptics), and
> the two camps makes a great show of being at odds with each other
> without seeing that they - like the believer and the heretic
> "..perpetuating a common myth"
>
> > It's not a test balloon. It's a line of reasoning that - if you
> > could fill in the blanks - disproves the som and proves the moq.
> > Well, show me another line of argument if you've got one, but I
> > haven't seen it yet.
>
> My position is that the MOQ should drop the pretension of being an
> adjustment to SOM: it's revolution! On its own the MOQ is the most
> powerful model yet seen, on SOM's premises it is - in Struan/Theo's
> words: an ugly and unnecessary complication.
So you're using a lot of adjectives, well maybe if you were recommending
a restaurant I might believe you but we're trying to establish a new
theory of reality here. The fact that you like it isn't a convincing
argument.
Meanwhile, what I'm trying to do with these posts is show the people who
think science is everything that they need to pay attention to
aesthetics and show the people who think aesthetics is everything that
they need to pay attention to science. It's a subject-object split -
Einstein vs Magritte - you need to see both sides in order to get over
it. I really don't see why it's such a controversial point. I haven't
solved the problem, I'm merely pointing out what has to be done.
If you don't do it like that what are you going to do? Use the MoQ to
prove the MoQ?
Read my posts again.
Diana
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST