>Dan: >I would say that the spacial awareness of objects that you refer to is >your imagination at work; there is no way to prove spacial awareness >(or >objects) exists. > >Ron: >I Argue then that there is no way for you to prove other people exist >or anything else outside of you exists. Are we all then constructs of >your mind? back to Solopsism.
Dan: I would go back to the statement that matter comes before ideas is a high quality intellectual pattern of value. Solopsism is an indefensable postition as you know. It will always be there, just as our human-ness will forever color our perception of reality. Ron: Not exactly sure how this response applies to my question . Dan: The deeper researchers delve into physical reality, the more apparent it becomes that there is "nothing" there that can be objectified. Only when subject and object are considered together does some sense begin to emerge. Ron: If you interpet the loose term of energy to mean nothing in the same way one defines dynamic quality to mean nothing. Dan: I think that's what the MOQ brings to the table: a way of ordering reality that doesn't begin by separating subject from object but rather uniting them under one umbrella. Ron: I'm not arguing this intellectual assertion, I argue that subject object distinction also lies in immediate experience and not just an intellection. By your rational, if one observes an object never experienced before, that object can not exist. >Ron: I can almost hear >the ka-ching of the static latch. >whatever happened to radical empiricism. Dan: Of course I cannot speak for the others but over the years we have been through this numerous times. I suspect your questions have been asked and answered before. Ron: This explaination and your assumptions of the MoQ coincide. for nothing new can be learned only re-experienced over and over. DMB posted a poient quote: He says, "The one thing in the world, of value, is the active soul." The sort of creative genius, he says, "is the sound estate of every man, In its essence it is progressive. ...springing spontaneous from the mind's own sense of good and fair." (Need we ask anyone, Phaedrus?) "In the right state he is Man Thinking. In the degenerate state ...a mere thinker, or still worse, the parrot of other men's thinking." (Yes, i see the irony in quoting that.) Books, he says, "are for nothing but to inspire". "Undoubtedly there is a right way of reading, so it be sternly subordinated. Man Thinking must not be subdued by his instruments." Ron: It seems to me that what you are saying is because this has been discussed before it should not be discussed again "kaching" that Pirsig is the last word on this "ka-ching" and that perhaps a slight alteration in how subject/object distinction is buried deeper into the psychy than previously understood is somehow interpreted as wide departure from what Moq states, I just do not understand, shy of questioning an accepted dogma. Value is an umbrella term and concept but when you begin to get into any kind of description, even in MOQ terms, you get subjective value and objective value, (intellectual/social value and organic/inorganic value). I say they still battle one another. SA, asked "what battle?" of which I offer the current stream of threads in regard to Platt (which everyone says they dispise but typically get the most play)in which the subjective vs. the objective MOQ aspects are being hotly debated. I ask if MOQ unites under one umbrella then why all the debate? Where they meet in the term MORAL there seems to be the most confusion. The idea of betterness becomes difficult when used to bridge these values. When you say : "I think that's what the MOQ brings to the table is a way of ordering reality that doesn't begin by separating subject from object but rather uniting them under one umbrella." It appears to me like a solving by redefining. Someone mentioned MOQ method, Of which I think has more validity than MOQ philosophy. MOQ method is joined and supported by general realtivity theory, Radical empiricism and the set theory in mathmatics known as Topos. To me MOQ method is the philosophy but the philosophy part of it is beginning to verge on the philosophology, especially here on the MOQ discuss forum. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
