Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 11:02:03 GMT
David M. and Foci.
28 Dec. You said:
> NOTA BENE!! In the said example above intellects S/O value
> (objectivity-over-subjectivity) is plain to see, so plain that I wonder
> how anyone can avoid seeing it. Just as obvious is emotions as the
> social "expression" and reason as intellect's, and in light of the
> dependency issue one sees emotions' role as what underpins
> reason. Why you consider this aspect of the MOQ as imperfect is
> very strange.
> DM: I agree that SOM, which implies only the distinction, generally
> becomes the value "objectivity-over-subjectivity" but this is not
> true of the great German idealist tradition that is the other way round and
> has a great deal to say about reason and is more the concern of European
> post-modernism than the "objectivity-over-subjectivity" that is really the
> value of modern secular techno-scientific society.
That the subject/object-METAPHYSICS has 2 - two - components
an idealist and a materialist one I have harped on since God knows
when, but the SOM removed of its metaphysical 'M' and given the
role of MOQ's intellectual level ...means the VALUE of the S/O
distinction. Neither the idealist nor the materialist is "right" any
longer because the rightness is taken over by the MOQ.
> I think that your formual
> intellect=SOM I find very odd when I have been educated mainly in the German idealist
> tradition in the humanities
I see your point perfectly and at the start of my SOL "campaign" -
when the formula was "intellect=SOM" - it could look as if I had
overlooked the idealist half, but with the "intellect=the value of the
S/O distinction" form it aught to be crystal clear.
> but with dualism turned materialist in the sciences. I
> agrre very much with Pirsig with respect to science, but there is a big tradition in the
> European humanities (also some US pragmatism) that is not based on the
> "objectivity-over-subjectivity" value.
I know, but please David: It's the subject/object dualism (here in
the idealist/materialist form) that the MOQ says is WRONG ...and
what it is supposed to replace with its own DQ/SQ dualism.
Haven't you understood this elementary fact yet?
> We have been happy in Europe to talk alot ion the humanties about the
> subjective-experiencing-self over the objective-groundless-limited-sciences.
Wishing you all a Happy New year
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 02:03:06 GMT