Hi Bo >> SOM is the form intellect has developed from and with. The S-O >> distinction intellectually divides experience-reality into two.
DM: The S-O helps to create the 4th level but I see no reason why the 4th level cannot evolve, broaded away from SOM and yet remain something we can call intellectual. > > "SOM the form intellect developed from". It sounds as if intellect could > have developed from something else and - in that case - into > something differnt. Why not simply say "SOM was how intellect > regarded itself before the MOQ took over and showed us its proper > place? DM: Hard to imagine away our own actual evolution.The MOQ does, I'd accept, change how we see SOM and allows us to drop the M, otherwise known as anti-essentialism for the likes of Dewey and Heidegger would say and they are not MOQers. > >> and MOQ tries to heal this and avoid the M problems of SOM. There is a >> danger that MOQ could fall back into SOM as Matt K argues it sometimes >> does > > At times I wonder if it has ever been out of SOM. DM: True, some of our posters seem a bit confused. The notion of Quality > as some all pervading medium that the MOQ is just one possible > theory about is somish to the core. It's Kant's "Thing in itself" that no > one - or no theory - will fathom or catch. DM: I always see quality as experienced quality. > >> but with care I think it can tread this difficult path of being a >> metaphysics without the problems of SOM. But in some ways it changes >> what we mean by metaphysics. No reality/appearance distinction, no >> quest for certainty. > > THAT is just right > IMO > Bo Good. Thanks for the debate, I have enjoyed it. David M 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/
