Hello everyone >From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic >Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:35:46 -0400 > > > >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: Yes I can see that. > >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: We are obviously talking past one another. > >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. Dan: By my rational objects cannot 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. Dan: I'm sorry Ron. I am losing you here. I'm sure it is my own shortcoming but I haven't any idea what you're attempting to say. >DMB posted a poient quote: Dan: What do you mean by poient? > >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 Dan: That is not what I meant at all. You were complaining that no one answered your question. I was merely offering some type of explanation why that might be. >"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. Dan: You're looking for something that I cannot help you with. >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. Dan: I have never said that I despise Platt. Please don't generalize. >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. Dan: I suspect you're looking at the MOQ through SOM goggles. But I am sure that I am wrong. >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. Dan: You're much more intelligent than I am. Sorry to have wasted your time. As I am very busy I will have to say goodbye for now. Good luck and thank you. Dan 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/
