By the way a good book on Whitehead and Physics is Nature Loves to Hide by Shimon Malin
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Mindless Metaphysics > Dmb previously: > James and Dewey are non-SOM philosophers and that's my main point. > Their work is proof that there are non-SOM alternatives at the > intellectual level. > > Ron previously: > The angle is that they are SOM philosophers, they were born and bred in > western culture, they use English, a subject object case language to > describe non-analytic alternatives. They project a paradigm outside Of > the cultural normative thought structure, James and Dewey offer Radical > inclusion to analytic empirical method. They contend that no Data is > strictly objective and factual, It is all colored by cultural And > personal bias. > It is the realization that we can not trust ourselves to objectively > Evaluate any data absolutely, we may however reduce error by applying A > radical empiricism. > > It is a refinement of SOM methods, it is truer via James own convictions > Of any new idea's test is the compatibility with former ideas. > > Recent Dmb quotes: > "Nobody denies that SOM is part of the language or culture. As I've said > many times, those distinctions are useful and appropriate most of the > time." > > "The debate about SOM and the philosophical criticism of it is taking > place within our culture. You and me and Pirsig and James all speak > english and read philosophy books. The alternatives offered are also > drawn from that same culture." > > Steve's Pirsig Quote to Gav: > "There already is a metaphysics of quality. A subject-object > metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of > Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is into subjects and > objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human experience is > supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble is, it > doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits > above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also > saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects and > objects are just one of the ways." (Lila) > > > Ron says: > Dave, as per the above statements we are on the same page, different > Paragraphs perhaps but the same page non-the-less, here's the issue: > Bo maintains by these statements that for all practical intent and > purpose, > SOM represents the intellectual level as per our culture. And as you > Posit that Dewey James and Pirsig project an intellectual framework > different From it. Now MoQ and SOM differ in the fact that SOM is > embedded in the culture while MoQ is not, not yet anyway. > Here lies the paradigm shift from speaking about the levels in general > Evolutionary terms and speaking of them in culturally specific terms. > > > Dave, I'm not an SOL salesman, I'm just trying to sort out the mess. > I guess the main point is > That SOM was not aware that it was an intellectual pattern and took > It for reality itself the culture takes it as reality itself. MoQ > realizes it is an intellectual pattern > And includes this knowledge in it's body. It leaves the metaphysic open > to the dynamic. This aspect alone sets it above all other intellectual > patterns. Now before you go pointing to Tao and Hinduism, I must point > out that MoQ retains scientific method and a host of other SOM qualities > that have bore the fruit of our modern world. > as far as I'm aware historically this is something of a first for > humanity > and the dawning of a new age of possibility. > > dmb says: > Please explain what topos theory says and how it is related to radical > empiricist method? > > Ron: > This is where it all ties together, MoQ and scientific method. > I don't have the time at the moment to explain all the technical aspects > But I can give you a rough synopsis. Topos theory is a mixture of > Whiteheads principle of relativity and James Radical empiricism. > It accounts for all data in a given mathematic system a rather complex > one. > It's something along the lines of weather prediction models where it > also > Relies on interrelatedness, nothing is isolated, well, to a point. > What it does is set up a mathematical model based in value sets which > Compose a loose system which in turn is a part of a collection of > Systems which discreetly interrelate. In this collection of interrelated > Systems a small virtually un noticeable variable can geometrically > Accumulate To effect the collection or a portion of it. > These systems as Pirsig proposes in his levels, interrelate but do > Not resemble each other they all work on their own system but as > Pirsig also proposes, they all require each other to exist. > For example a team could set up an eco model of the Brazilian rain > forest > Given all we know about its specific parts, weather, deforestation, > Population, habitat, climate ect. And introduce any variable to then > predict > Outcomes that scientists would never dream of hypothesizing, effects so > minute as to build to huge unforeseen impact. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. > http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012 > 008 > 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/ > 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/
