Rick and Foci.
Thanks for showing interest in this lofty yet important aspect of the
MOQ. I hope we will reach some conclusion soon ....or exhaustion.
No, I really love it!
You wrote:
> This intrigued me instantly. It is strange to me to see you align
> "subject/object" with "myth/truth" (RMP aligns S/O with Mind/Matter,
> doesn't he?).
He does. At some point in LILA he calls SOM a mind-matter
metaphysics. Subjective is equal to "just in the mind". Fairy tales,
myth. Not real, untrue.
The strongest indication that Q-intellect=subject-objectivity is the
Greek experience as described in ZAMM. It is about the rise of
truth above myth. I don't remember your (Rick's) opinion on how
this ZAMM part is to be interpreted when we discussed it, but it
can be seen alternatively as the emergence of the intellectual level
and of subject-object metaphysics which gives a strong case for
identity.
> As I understand it, the MoQ does not acknowledge any
> "truth"... not in any conventional sense anyway.
Exactly! The intellectual level is merely one static layer in the
Quality "cake". The best ever, yet subordinate to the overall MOQ.
Objectivity is better than obedience which in turn is better than dog-
eats-dog which is better than death. A fifth level will out-better
intellect - that's why I see the Quality as a first ever attempt on
intellect - but it will never lose its value.
> My problem comes
> from the notion that you are using "truth" to mean--- a proposition
> that corresponds to some objective reality... or maybe... that which
> is independent of what any one thinks about it.
Fom a MOQ point of view "independent of what any one thinks
about it" is the best definition, because it means independent of
society. The first "a proposition that corresponds to some objective
reality" is truth seen from inside subject-object METAPHYSICS.
> --- The SOLAQI reminds
> me of the compromise made by Plato for the Sophists (described by RMP
> in ZMM) in which he gave the Good the highest position in his system,
> subservient to only the True--- the SOLAQI seems to reverse this,
> giving the True (as Intellect) the highest position, subservient only
> to the Good (DQ itself). This sounds like a good idea, but it brought
> me back to this...
This is an interesting observation Rick! I haven't seen it before.
Yes, I agree, its a reversal. Thanks for pointing to it. You may call
me PlaBo now. ;-D
> "What deduction or induction guarantees us freedom of speech?
> Or the
> right to a fair trial? Or freedom of the press? I can't find
> these things in SOL anywhere. These concepts are neither
> generalizations of experience, nor are they formal necessities.
> So I put it to Bo--- How does one get freedom of the press from
> SOL???"
I am at a loss to find new ways of saying it, but what is justice
except OBJECTIVITY?. That is what human rights and every
conceivable (intellectual) value is about. But to be objective you
have to know subjectivity, they go together like up and down.
> I agree with everything you say here, but I'm not sure it answers
> the question. I'm not disputing that the Q-Intellect and SOM are
> intimately connected... only that SOL (or SOM, whichever you prefer)
> is the WHOLE of Q-Intellect. I still fail to see how one can arrive
> at the notion of "freedom of the press" or "habeas corpus" using
> SOL. As I said before, these concepts are neither generalizations of
> experience, nor are they formal necessities. "Freedom of the press"
> cannot be deduced from any formal logical principles, it cannot be
> induced from any "objective" experiences... So I ask, doesn't there
> have to be more to the "one overarching idea of Q-Intellect" (that
> you spoke of) than just SOL.... >
The whole of Q-intellect? Each Q-level can be boiled down to some
essential "expression" as I called it in my INTERACTION-
SENSATION-EMOTION-REASON sequence. There are countless
patterns but something characterizes the patterns of each level. I
would have liked to call Q-intellect's expression "subject/objection"
(to keep the 'ion' suffix, but reason says the same thing.
> I hate to suggest that this begs the question but in light of the
> above paragraph, I'll re-ask it like this: 1. In what way does
> "objectivity" guarantee us a free press?
Again. What would guarantee a free press other than [the quest for]
objectivity? Twisting my mind I am not able to see a better
guaranty. That's why I want the TRUE to be the highest value level,
subservient only to the GOOD not something to be thrown into the
metaphysical waste-basket.
> 2. If it doesn't, then how
> can the SOLAQI possibly hold up?
I think I have demonstrated the case fairly well, at least I am not
able to see the weak spot. I will add that the SOL idea is what
excites me so much about the MOQ. It makes it able to meet any
academic critic .... or Struan Hellier (bless him :-).
Thanks for your time.
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST