Re: MD Intersubjective agreement

Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 08:58:40 BST

  • Next message: Lars Quisling: "RE: MD Pirsig, Falck, and Wolfram"

    Hi Johnny and All

    On 19 Aug. you responded to this response from me:

    > >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!

    > I like the "idea/rock aggregate" phrase. I agree they do not exist
    > separately. It's almost like SOM or materialism, except that the rock
    > doesn't exist if there is no idea of it. But if there is, it does,
    > and there should be if there should be.

    I skip the things leading up to this point as I haven't followed it too
    closely. You say you "like" the idea/rock aggregate, that's good but I
    had hoped for a resounding YES because this is really what all is
    about, how to define the Q-intellect I mean. If that is seen as the "idea
    of a rock/the rock itself" aggregate all problems dissolve.

    Me prev:
    > >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.

    > But, in some other sense, not?

    Er ..yes, because - as said - what you wrote (below) are valid as
    arguments before the Quality insight, but disastrous afterwards.

    > > > there, there has to be a rock there
    > > > in the mythos

    "Mythos" is the pre-intellectual social era (I call) no?

    > > > an intersubjective agreement that a rock should be
    > > > there, before anyone can have an ontologically material idea that
    > > > a rock is there.

    To the Stone Age (who had a special relationship with rocks ;) nature
    weren't what we (from intellect ) call "matter", the proverbial rock was
    rather petrified "life". Your above "intersubjective agreement" as if
    decisive for the rock's existence is intellect peering down on the rest of
    existence from its "alta vista".

    > > > The intersubjective agreement is based entirely
    > > > on SQ, a common mythos.

    But the MOQ is a even higher vista, from where intellect is "the rest of
    existence" and NOT mind - as I accuse so many of you to view it like.
    MIND IS REMOVED TO THE Q-LEVEL!!! In this context the
    "intersubjective agreement based on common mythos" becomes:
    "Intellect's divide of a material rock and an idea of that rock began with
    people of old starting to ask for a permanence beyond the MYTH.

    Me prev:
    > >...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.
    > Please explain?

    My above deliberations is my explanation. Hope it makes sense.


    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 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 09:00:40 BST