Hi Ian I think the MOQ is a metaphysics, it is not about describing any distinction about the real and apparent but all about articulating our most basic categories used to describe experience. For the MOQ these are dynamic and static. SOM is a bit like MOQ without the DQ. Traditional reductive science is like this too (newer ideas in science seem to me to be increasingly taking account of DQ). Much of this seems clear reading Joseph Margolis.
In a way Platonism calls DQ mere appearance and causes it to be vastly under valued and under recognised. This is exactly why Heidegger says SOM forgets Being, where Being for Heidegger is not static 'beings' but the larger reality of Becoming and Be-going (eg death). DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [MD] "100% confident" > Ham, Ron, SA, et al ... > > I hope Ron and SA patch up their difference. I for one find the poking > holes / throwing rocks / darts style of argumentation distincly boring > and "old rationality". Difference should be a source of progress not > disagreement wherever possible (if people a pragmatically motivated). > Anyway ..... > > Very interestingly Ham, you said >> >> There are a several here who apparently skipped Science in school and >> regard >> metaphysics as a branch of Physics. They're looking for factual answers >> about the universe and are frustrated that the intelligentsia in this >> forum >> aren't forthcoming with them. Since intuitive concepts are new to these >> folks, their first impulse is to attack the messenger. They'll quote >> what >> Pirsig says on every issue; but, unfortunately, despite naming his >> philosophy the Metaphysics of Quality, what Pirsig actually said about >> metaphysics was mostly disparaging. >> > > I agree with the thrust of your concern about people looking for > simple "objective" answers and the frustrated reaction that elicits, > but why "unfortunately" Ham, about Pirsig effectively disparaging > metaphysics ? > > For me this pragmatic conclusion is it's value. The fact MoQ is > misnamed is an accident of history (something I have remarked several > times before) - but it doesn't undermine its quality. > > Regards > Ian > 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/ > 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/
