RE: MD Where things end.

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 18:25:54 BST

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD Pirsig and Peirce"

    Hi Bo:

    You wrote to Paul:
    >As said in
    > this message I am the first to admit that a fundamental change of
    > outlook fundamentally changes reality, and maybe the MOQ is a
    > metaphysics based on the premises that - FROM A SOM p.o.v. - everything
    > is a human invention/only in our minds ...whatever. But once the dice is
    > cast it is impossible to return saying that the MOQ is just a figment of
    > the mind as long as the mind/matter divide is invalid a
    > metaphysics. The M is taken over by the MOQ.

    But, Bo. Can't you see that in your first sentence "outlook" is
    subjective and "reality" is objective. You use the "S/O" difference
    that you rail against and call "invalid as a metaphysics" all the time,
    like in your "bug in the sock" (subject) "enormous vistas" (object)
    metaphor. It seems to me if your "rebel intellectual pattern" is valid,
    you would demonstrate how to use it to explain your views without
    falling back into the S/O level. Or is your rebel pattern "ineffable"
    after all?

    What don't I understand? Are S/O assumptions so ingrained in our
    intellectual patterns that to eliminate them from verbal communication
    is impossible? If that's so, how is the MOQ anything other than an S/O
    explanation of the medieval religious vision that there is purpose in
    the world, that the world is a moral order, and in the end all things
    are for the best?


    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 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 18:25:03 BST