David M On 20 Oct. you wrote:
> > [Bo] > > There is no way of ESCAPING an explanation of experience and for the > > Western world this explanation has been the subject/object one. > DM: Is it an explanation? I'd suggest it is a way of dividing and > describing experience, where's the explanation? We must have a different notion of what "explanation" means, perhaps "interpretation" is more close to what I mean. I possibly mentioned my favourite "cave humankind" who represents the social level at its hey- day before intellect arrived. Their explanation/interpretation of experience was that of gods and goddesses, that - for example - the lights in the sky were such entities, that ALL phenomena were effects of their will. (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung). Then came intellect that looked objectively on experience and explained it accordingly - the lights were inert heavenly bodies - planets and stars. This explanation did not spring full-fledged from the Greeks but evolved from their basic new attitude, that of seeking for OBJECTIVE truth and regarding the old (in moqtalk) social explanation as SUBJECTIVE nonsense. > DM: Well yes,one of the problems with SOM is its focus on order and > its blindness towards dynamic emergence, etc. This is your comment to Joe's musings but I can't help myself. "Blindness towards dynamic experience". The static levels are static for the reason of "being blind to the dynamic" and intellect (SOM) is as blind as the rest. It's only from MOQ's meta-level that existence's dynamic/static aspect became manifest. Bo 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/
