Hello Magnus,
Ron prev: > To assume s/o distinction is a 2nd level property may be reductive > Fallacy depending on how you use this assumption in the formation > Of a metaphysic. Magnus: Huh? Are you suggesting *I* meant that? In all of the above (and both your following posts), you're assuming the old rag "I think, therefore I am", right? Ron: Wha? That's what you are telling me, thinking is proprietary to human Existence, I tend to disagree. When you suggest we start at the bottom and work up, you're Assuming there is a bottom in a complex system. Side stepping the issue by imposing a "I think, therefore I am", view on my statements does not Address that point. Magnus: And if you do that, of course you can only discuss our reality/universe from the perspective of human thinking. If you force the MoQ into that same limited glass cage, the only thing you can really do is discuss different types of thoughts. Ron: I don't see any way NOT to keep this in mind when we enter into these discussions. The MOQ IS in that same limited glass cage. What it alludes to Is the development of individual personal experience, else MOQ falls to the same SOM trap of assuming it is more than a concept. The Quality awareness It arrives at is another story. Magnus: But the MoQ throws that old rag on the dump, it's *not* about dissecting the human mind into different types of thoughts. It says we *can* assume that there *is* a reality outside of our minds. The tree *does* fall in the forest even if nobody hears it, I assure you! (and so does the MoQ). Ron: No argument, but how those events are perceived and understood is all Interpretation. Magnus: You said that "human beings are found in societies". Yes, and? Is that supposed to prove that intellect relies on a society? Ron: Well, yes. I posit that very thing. I'll even go so far as to say that Intellect is what defines humans (homo sapiens) and their societies. As I said, to reduce intellect to biology commits reductive fallacy. Magnus: As you say, we have nothing to compare against. But the thing is, human societies are way too complex to use for any pragmatic analysis. At the very least, it's the complete wrong end to start analyzing our reality. We should start at the bottom and work our way upward, not at the top and try to find the basic building blocks of the universe there. Ron: You contradict yourself, you say: "societies are way too complex to use for any pragmatic analysis" then follow up with " We should start at the bottom and work our way upward", so, just where is the bottom in this complex system? This is my point, it doesn't have one. Pirsig describes his level structure in a holistic way concerning the human condition and how it relates to reality. Then you state:" And if you do that, of course you can only discuss our reality/universe from the perspective of human thinking." Well Magnus, if your argument is that intellect is proprietary Of the human condition then it only stands to reason that humans Can ever only discuss our reality/universe from the perspective of human thinking. Isn't objective assumption one of the first rags thrown on the dump? 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/
