From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 08:36:33 BST
Hello Bo,
>Please enlarge on your doubts about SOM=the intellectual level.
>From a particular statement below it looks like you agree.
Maybe you can point out the exact statement that you're referring to, meanwhile I'll try to explain my thoughts on this.
I find it hard to define the intellectual level, and put down criteria that it much adher to. So I'll not go define it.
Concerning MOQ and SOM, they're both metaphysics, i.e. they're both theories trying to explain our perceived reality. They're just completely different. Most of us on this Mailing list will say the MOQ is the better one. But at best its a perfect description of our world, whereas SOM is a faulty description of our world. The key is the word 'description'. A manipulation of language (symbols) to intellectually reflect our reality.
I wrote:
>> Yes, the S/O division must be abandoned
>
You've said:
>Well it all depends on what one sees S/O as. To me it is intellect
>itself which was SOM before the MOQ. Afterwards it's just S/O
>and can as little be removed as social value can.
But then if we not abandon it, we must realize that it's not a metaphysical truth, so maybe in that sense you're right, and it's enough to drop the 'M'. I'll have to give that some more thought, but I think I see your point.
I wrote:
>> or else you keep
>> intellectualizing about MOQ in a SO-way.
>
You've replied:
>Exactly! This is what I have been telling this discussion for God
>knows how many years. They keep intellectualizing about the
>MOQ ...which to me means they haven't got out of SOM!
I don't say intellectualizing is bad perse, just intellecualizing in a S/O kind of way. Or how else would you call this mailing-list and the books of Pirsig, and you're own written contributions to the MOQ?
>Bo earlier:
>> >Yes, as a metaphysics SOM is contradictory, but as a static value it
>> >is great.
>
>Reinier:
>> But we can't say on a metaphysical level, let's get rid of it, but we
>> keep it as static intellectual pattern because we have no alternative.
>
>"On a metaphysical level" ...means from the MOQ? The MOQ
>has stripped SOM of its metaphysical "M" and left it as its own
>intellectual level. That can be done and MUST be done to
>prevent what you said above: Intellectualizing about the MOQ.
Yes, see my previous comment, and please define intellectualizing.
I wrote earlier:
>> Whereas I think time and space are the results of the SO PoV that
>> krept into every organism in the organic level and above.
>
You replied:
>Well, uppercase Time & Space are surely S/O, but lowercase
>time and space are inorganic patterns
>
From a MOQ point of view, I'd say that because you cannor experience time and space they don't exist.
Think about this, has there ever been a direct experience of either time or space?
Another little step aside:
In the quest for the smallest particle science has arrived at quantum physics. They're no longer on a level of directly experiencing things, at best they conclude how a smallest particle will look based on in-direct observations.
So what if they do find a smallest, solid, dimensional particle? (This is all very SO). Imagine there exists one, now zoom in on it a few billion times, make it as big as a soccer-bal (let's asume for simplicity it's that shape). If there is a smalles particle then we can do this, just zoom in and make it this big. What we'll have is a very solid, undividable soccer-ball. Now inside this ball, it's still called the universe... what laws would there be there? Push the left side of the soccer-ball. The right side will move at exactly the same time, so we can transmit information with a speed greater then the speed of light. Put another soccer-ball next to it? What's in between them? How do they 'know' of each others existence if there's nothing in between them?
Every consequence you describe when you assume there IS a smalles partical goes against everything tradition science believed in if you closely look at it.
So then assume there is no smallest, dimensional particle (like the MOQ does). Now, if something has no dimensions, can it have a position? If so, what will you see when you arive at that position? Does energy have a position, then where is it limited by? If nothing has dimensions, and nothing has a 3D position (3D coordinates) then what's the meaning of space?
Okay, just some unstructured thoughts to maybe raise some more discussion.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
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 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 08:46:22 BST