Craig
25 March:
[Bo] before:
> > ...the Litmus test to determine if a person understands the Quality
> > Idea [is] theories create our interpretation of the sensory "data".
> It would be better to say: "theories, CULTURE & LANGUAGE create our
> interpretation of the sensory 'data'." But I don't think this is a
> good Litmus test to determine if a person understands the Quality Idea,
> since one could agree with it, but reject the MoQ.
But then, what determines a culture's outlook if not its reigning
theories? Regarding language it has two roles:, Everything or
nothing at all, either we are suspended in language or it's a
neutral medium and I think we stick to the latter lest we have a
language metaphysics to cope with.
Hmm, agreement with the Newton example and rejection of the
MOQ? Such an understanding must necessarily result in a break
with SOM and the alternative must as necessarily be a MOQ-like
metaphysics. For instance the above I said about language ,
making it reality's ground, then a dynamic/static split and a static
language hierarchy .... perfect!
[Bo]
> > the MOQ creates the Quality Reality and in that reality there is
> > neither "man" or "man's mind" or "our consciousness" where ideas
> > exist of
> > which the MOQ is one
> Are you saying that the MOQ creates both DQ & SQ?
Creates? SOM is the chasm between a subject "in here" and an
objective world "out there", the MOQ is the dynamic/static chasm.
To deny this and make it sound as if Quality is from eternity and
the MOQ's just an arbitrary theory is futile. Like SOM up through
the millenniums assumed the role of being from eternity, MOQ
will be regarded as having been from eternity. "How could we
ever think otherwise....?"
> And that "man" or "man's mind" or "our consciousness" do not exist in
> Quality Reality?
Regarding these concepts they are all SOM-based and will be
relegated the role as 4th. level patterns, i.e. most useful, but
static nevertheless.
> Or just that in Quality Reality, ideas do not exist in "man" or "man's
> mind" or "our consciousness"?
Ideas (like theories) are subjective "patterns" in SOM and inside
that metaphysics I think the subjective argument is the strong
one - to prove that all is mind or ideas or that theories determine
our outlook is watertight. But the MOQ is a total break with SOM,
ideas has no place outside its 4th. level's jurisdiction.
To repeat: In a metaphysics that rejects the subject/object
distinction (and all its derivative) "mind" can't survive, nor can
"consciousness" (consciousness/what it's conscious of) there are
just the levels' "consciousness" which is synonymous with its
value. I know that humankind and its awareness is next to sacred
(what Ham builds his metaphysics on) and its reduction to mere
intellectual static patterns is the greatest hurdle to overcome.
But it's here I think the MOQ can open up new paths - for
instance to Artificial Intelligence - a field which is completely
stalled inside SOM that requires computers to wake up to
consciousness, something that won't happen because this is a
result of the social level that resulted in the intellectual level
where consciousness exist as the said S/O pattern -
consciousness/what it's conscious of . A detached awareness - a
"Brain in a Vat" (E.A. Poe) does not exist.
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/
