> [SA previously]
> Here's a question I believe Ron came up with as
> follows:
> The MoQ states Quality is before subjects and
> objects, and Ron
> asked why couldn't subjects and objects come before
> Quality.
> [ron]
> I stated subject object value(quality) are one.
> Pirsig placed
> value(quality) before subject and object in the SODV
> paper
> and supported what Dan stated that ideas actually do
> come before matter.
> I questioned how literal does he mean this?
> is he saying that ideas create matter scientificly?
> If he does mean
> this, doesent this concept then render ultimate
> reality as subjective in origin?. I went to the
> extreme with the notion
> of a solopsism lying in this direction among
> a host of other misinterpetations that would be
> easily derived from this.
Sorry Ron, I misinterpreted what you meant. I
see what you mean now. I would say, no the MoQ is not
saying intellect comes before the inorganic level.
The evolutionary order is explicit with the static
levels where organic is first, then eventually to
intellect with dq everywhere. Where I do see thought
coming into play is thought informs us what this
inorganic level is. We have this intellect that
provides thoughtful information. Our intellect
provides our thoughtful perspective on what the
inorganic level is, and in that way, I can understand
how ideas are coming before inorganic level. Yet,
this gets into how our ideas shape the world around
us, which is fine, but it is duly noted that
empirical, experimental, and experienced notions, such
as the inorganic goes through the organic, social, and
then intellectual level is informed. The intellectual
level knows about the inorganic level through these
three foundation levels of the intellect. So... I
have no idea what Dan is talking about.
[Ron]
> I simply offer the possibility that the reason for
> the paradox is the
> fact that experience itself is distinction
> and that a pure abstract concept with no relational
> terms is impossible
> to convey or speakabout for it can not be
> defined nor measured. It can only be described in
> terms of distinction.
> SOM through mathmatic formal logic assumes
> distinction is measureble and
> predictable.
> MOQ realizes that all is one and indestinct, the
> are no absolutes and
> strays from making
> assumption when dealing with distinction.
> so to propose an objective relevence leads to all
> sorts of assumptions
> once stated that subjects objects value are one,
> seperating any of these
> is leading back down the path of distinction.
Ok, I see where your coming from. What Dan G.
said triggered this discussion and your trying to
amend what you 'thought' the MoQ was saying, but then
Dan said what he said and that threw a wrench in it.
Yes, to separate s, o, and value would lead to a
difficulty, as when Dan stated ideas came before
matter. I would also state s and o is NOT the only
detail in the s, o, and value oneness. Actually, s
and o can be used, but a whole other array of value
understandings, such as patterns in these values,
also, morals and quality, the evolutionary levels are
some. S and o can be left out of the MoQ
understanding, and that helps in the understanding,
but s's and o's can be used, but their meaning changes
or might I add it is not necessarily their meaning
that is changing but the old metaphysics (the old
paradigm) that they used to be apart of is what
changes.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
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/
