Rich, (Roger, David, Platt, Curtis, Avid, others,)
I agree with Bo that the "Reality and observation" serial is formidable.
There are many high Quality posts lately and I just hate it that time
doesn't permit me to participate more, because I've got lots to say.
Roger's last respons to David is great. I really think we're not so far
apart as it seems. Especially if we recognize eachothers presuppositions
in the discussion.
David writes:
> I think we all agree that the DQ/sQ split is the primary division of the MOQ.
> Roger has laid out his definitions of DQ and sQ and now I can see that
> we have different ideas about this most basic starting point. If we can't
> agree on the meaning of the first "split", then we're bound to be
> confused from that point onward. It might seem too elementary to bother
> with, but I think we have some major differences of opinion at the
> starting gate.
It took me a while to view my own static presuppositions in the discussion.
I managed to see them by really trying to understand the other side, for
instance how Platt could say "Mine is the only world". It didn't 'convert' my
position, but it did make it much more complete, and that's what we're all
searching for, isn't it?
Maybe I'll comment in a next post. (Some of the posts about the recognition
of DQ make me want to drag out my old grandma-post again ... and I might
even do it!).
Rich, bare with me the pace in which I respond to posts Rich. Anyway
this is a respons to your Quality vs Value post too.
It all begins with this quote from Rich (I changed it slightly following our
discussion):
"Quality is One, Undivided"
This means that any distinction between "static" and "dynamic" is
ultimately LESS TRUE or LESS REAL, though useful.
I followed:
Epistemologic Reality is like an optimum. To put it in a graph it
would resemble a Gaussian-diagram.
Let me first say what I mean by Epistemologic Reality, for I can immagine
that for some of the members there is no other Reality than the Reality
experienced or known to us. I argue from the presupposition that there is an
'ultimate' Reality (= Quality), that can be partly known/experienced to/by us.
Furthermore, that what is known/experienced is heavily influenced by the very
structure that knows/experiences. This part I call Epistemologic Reality.
However it is strange to say, this epistemologic Reality is NOT a 100% the
TRUTH or REAL. When we see/feel/investigate an object, there will always be
properties that will remain unknown/unexperienced to us. By giving the object
a thourough (scientific) investigation, we will get closer to the TRUTH, but never
completely. The object can be very usefull to us (f.i. a chair) and it's not strange
that it is regarded as Real, and things are either Real or not-Real, though
methaphysically speaking there's a statistical chance of a thing to be real.
That's why epistemologic Reality is an optimum. This is really great if you apply
this in your everyday life.
The Gaussian-graph is the mathematical statistical representation of a hypothesis
to be true, ... eeh ... or better the chance the hypothesis is True.
Dtchgrtngs Walter
Ps Rich, I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Dutch (Euro) citizenship. But
you can buy me a beer anytime! I will answer this beer with some high Quality
(heavy) beers from our neighbour country, which is probably the best beerbrewing
country in the world. Where is ...? (Ten points for anyone that knows the name).
Only non-Europeans can participate).
Send me a post around that time.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST