LS Re: Rambling on intellect and life

Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:26:33 +0100

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Hettinger: "LS Re: SOM as MOQ intellectual level"
• Previous message: Donald T Palmgren: "LS Monument Circleing"

Hugo Fjelsted Alroe wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> thanks for your kind words. On your question:
>
> >I have just one comment on detail. You say, near the end, below, and
> I
> >quote -
> >
> >"And SOM is not simply subsumed as a part of MoQ, because SOM arose
> from
> >neglect of the presumed subject-object split, diverging because of
> this,
> >and there is no ground for this diversion in MoQ or some similar
> >metaphysics."
> >
> >Are you saying that SOM is subsumed, but that the subsumption is
> >complex, not simple? Or are you saying that SOM is essentially not
> >subsumed in MoQ? Or did I miss a deeper semantic here?
> >
> >To me, and I infer this in your words, the S-O schism heals through
> >unification and inversion in the MoQ's four levels of SPoVs. I think
> >this is what Bo and I both feel and Bo described as 'seamless'
> >subsumption within MoQ.
>
> Yes, what I wanted to say was that MoQ is not just a subsumption of
> SOM, in
> the way, that everything which was done based on SOM will be done the
> same
> way based on MoQ. That is, MoQ is not only a larger frame, like
> General
> relativity subsuming Newtons theory of gravity, MoQ is also a
> transfomation. Things will be done differently in many respects, even
> in
> most parts of science, I think. But I agree that, as metaphysics, MoQ
> provides an understanding of most other metaphysics, and in this
> respect
> subsumes these, as Pirsig argues somewhere.
>
> Did this answer your question?
Hugo,

Yes!

Thanks and Mtty,

Doug.
>
> Hugo
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>

-- 
The complementary view of truth is many truths which are contextual, and
by being contextual they leave room for the good to rule.  It is not
objectivism, which has no place for the good, and it is not relativism,
which has no place for truth.
By Hugo Fjelsted Alroe in his email to The Lila Squad on 11 March 1998,
17:44 titled, "LS Re: Rambling on intellect and life."
--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
 






Next message: Hettinger: "LS Re: SOM as MOQ intellectual level"
Previous message: Donald T Palmgren: "LS Monument Circleing"







This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 
on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST