From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 09:36:54 BST
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
right.
> 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.
IMO
Bo
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 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 09:39:06 BST