Re: MD Intersubjective agreement

Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 09:36:54 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Intersubjective agreement"

    Hi Johnny
    19 Aug. johnny moral wrote:

    > Is there a difference between "intersubjective agreement" and the
    > mythos?

    Provided I understand what you mean - and the "inter" prefix puzzles
    me, why not just "subjective" - I think not. No difference seen from the
    intellectual level of the MOQ, seen from the MOQ "level" however, but
    let me expound ...when I get a word in ;-).
    > Intersubjective agreement can be a priori, right?

    A priori means "in itself" or independent of experience, no?

    > It doesn't have to
    > be sought while seeking truth, rather, it is forced upon us before we
    > even realize that we have considered it

    I think you are describing logic rather that a self-evident argument.

    > It sure is assy9 to think
    > that we don't already know what we agree about. We agree about so
    > much - water flowing downhill, rocks being rocks, tigers being tigers.
    > You don't have to ask about it all the time.

    I guess the "don't" don't belong, or ...?

    > Also, the 'which came first' thing is subtle too: the idea of the rock
    > and the rock appear simultaneously. The rock won't appear unless the
    > idea is there, but the idea won't happen without a reason, a need for
    > a rock being there.

    From the said MOQ "level" view - the "idea/rock" aggregate is an
    intellectual pattern, as real as static pattern comes, but they do not
    exist separately. Wait! Hold you fire!

    > You can't just have an idea for a rock without a
    > good reason, rocks don't materialize in the middle of the table just
    > because you might imagine a rock

    The inorganic pattern of granite or marble or whatever is as REAL as
    all patterns of all static levels ..not least the intellectual pattern of an
    idea versus the material thing. In this sense your observations are

    > there, there has to be a rock there
    > in the mythos, an intersubjective agreement that a rock should be
    > there, before anyone can have an ontologically material idea that a
    > rock is there. The intersubjective agreement is based entirely on SQ,
    > a common mythos.

    ...but I'm afraid you are repeating the pre-moqish observations that
    Phaedrus of ZMM (who looked at it from SOM at that time) made
    about "mythos" and all that. Useful to arrive at the MOQ, but
    afterwards messing it up thoroughly.


    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 19 2003 - 09:39:06 BST