From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 19:59:02 BST
> Steve P.
> On 1 Aug. you wrote:
>
>> Would you agree that the MOQ replaces separate subjective and
>> objective realities
>
> Yes! I would ...only that I see the S/O as one reality divided along the
> S/O fault line. The MOQ has its own fault line, namely the
> dynamic/static one.
>
>> that the SOMist must constantly shift between
>
> Here you say so. Good!
>
>> with
>> a single reality that incorporates the two
>
> YES!! But how does it incorporate the two? Surely not with SOM as
> an "inferior intellectual pattern" or in some metaphysical waste-basket.
>
I have been thinking about your objection to a person's metaphysics as an
intellectual pattern or set of intellectual patterns, but I still don't see
the problem. SOM is a lens through which the SOMist will view experience.
It is a filter for his concepts, while for the MOQist, SOM is itself a
concept. The SOMist is not aware that he participates in propagating the
SOM intellectual pattern, but he does nonetheless.
>> as on a continuum of
>> experience that is entirely consistent with the experience of others
>> to experience that is not at all consistent with the experience of
>> others?
>
> This was a deep one. I am not sure if I get it. Please expound.
I said this to Platt to clarify:
"...my experience is that others seem to
get the same 10 inches as I do when measuring the length of some object,
but they don't always seem to get the same enjoyment out of the music I
like.
The SOMist says that the object really is 10 inches long. The object is
real, and since we all get the same measurement, the experience of the
object is real as well. It is "objective." On the other hand, the SOMist
views my appreciation of music as "just subjective," in other words, not
really real.
As In understand it, the MOQ blurs this subjective/objective distinction of
experiences. All humans will participate in very similar biological
patterns since we all have such similar DNA. Humans in a particular society
will participate in fairly similar social and intellectual patterns, but
comparing humans in different societies we will find their social and
intellectual patterns are quite different.
I don't think it is important to measure the 'degree of consistency of
experience with others.' I just see this idea of consistency as an answer
to the ZAMM question about why all people don't experience Quality the same
way. The question is asked because what is considered to be really real by
most is that which we all seem to experience in the same way, in other
words, that which is "objective." The question turns out not to be as
simple as objective versus subjective experience. It is not an either/or
distinction but rather concerns a "forest" of static patterns."
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 19:57:57 BST