Re: MD Lila's Child

Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 08:18:09 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD Lila's Child"

    Hi Steve.

    On 3 Aug. you wrote:

    Me previously:
    > > 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.

    Interesting even if you don't see any problem with "...a person's
    metaphysics as an intellectual pattern". A strange formulation, as if
    metaphysics are programs we constantly "download". I must ask you
    (as I did Rick): How many metaphysics do you know? What I protest
    is the MOQ as a pattern of an intellect I define as the value of the S/O
    divide. But you obviously start from the mind-intellect definition, no
    wonder you see no problem.

    "SOM a lens through which the somist view experience"...etc. Exactly!
    "A filter for his concepts? Er ...if you by concepts mean language and
    that language (for the somist) is the subjective part of experience
    ...Correct, but I feel that there is some other meaning which emerges
    in the next part "...while for the MOQist, SOM is itself a concept".

    The true moqist would formulate it this way "...while for me SOM is the
    Q-intellect with its language (concepts)/real world divide.

    > I said this to Platt to clarify:
    > " 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.

     I agree with this. .....even if "objects" aren't the main issue (squonk
    will agree) but the search for OBJECTIVITY. When the somist
    encounter various phenomena he asks "what are they - really", while
    the pre-som "socialist" had no such "really" notion.
    > 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 would say that the reason that the MOQ "blurs" the S/O distinction is
    that it sees the S/O divide as a subset of the MOQ, either the
    orthodox way or as the intellectual leve. As SOM it aspired at reality,
    but the MOQ showed to be "out of the social level".

    What your next point is supposed to show I'm not sure but "all
    humans will participate in very similar biological patterns ...etc" I take
    to mean that we generally look the same, while societies are wildly
    different. The last may be so if you compare an intellect-dominated
    country to a social-dominated tribe in the Amazonas. The difference
    between the latter and pre-som Greece wouldn't be that great. It was
    a magical, animated world.

    > 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."

    I believe this is valid, it takes some time to shift into Steve-mode.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 08:19:02 BST