On 7/7/08 8:34 AM, "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 7 July 2008 8:34 AM Ron writes to Joe:
Joe:
Hi Squonk. Ron, DMB and all,
[Joe]
Analogues for DQ/SQ. IMO the meaning for undefined DQ is an analogy to an
order in Existence. Aristotle wanted to divide existence into real existence
(concrete) and intentional existence which the mind creates to hold an
(abstracted) essence. Pragmatism questions Aristotle¹s metaphysics SOM,
because relationships between SQ is experiential rather than a product
of intentional existence in a mind. Bo¹s SOL usefully describes Aristotle¹s
division as a level of evolution, the intellectual level.
[Ron:]
I thought that was RMP who posited this in reference to the
origins of western cultural intellectual patterns. Bo maintains
that making the abstract/concrete grammatical distinction of axiom
is THE intellectual level of the human enterprise. It was a Greek convention
spread with the expansion of Alexander the greats empire which was the first
to conquer most of the known world. This leaves out the shoulders of
hundreds of years of the great Intellectual thinkers who preceded
Aristotle's axioms of logic not to mention the intellectuals of the east and
the world history before or aside from Aristotle's method. SOL is an
explanation to support this fallacious claim which fails even in this
regard. It can not explain how MoQ fits into it's own interpretation. It
must invent a 5th level to accommodate it and append half of the MoQ to fit
the interpretation. Bo's SOL smacks of intellectual absolutism, which I shy
from.I hope you can understand why I choose not to subscribe anymore.
Thanks Joe.
Hi Ron and all
I added the whole quote so that my argument is clearer. Aristotle was a
great philosopher. If the answer in his metaphysics SOM is in error yet he
still saw a value in metaphysics. Bo¹s answer is limited to the
intellectual level, yet still identifies a value in S/O and Aristotle while
wrong in developing SOM mind/body, yet he still had a profound insight in
the formulation of S/O.
Pragmatism: as DMB is discovering in his studies, changed the focus of
metaphysics to value.
IMO On a list dedicated to the MOQ I ask: why only four levels? I must
answer why Persig delineated only four. He hinted at another level when he
suggested that the movement that allowed a different cell to penetrate the
cell wall of an egg cell for reproduction was a DQ intervention.
The question I ask myself: DQ is undefined! Can DQ in any way be described
as an agent of change? I answer my question: No! Not and remain undefined.
No action can be attributed to DQ. ³I know but I can¹t say!² is the response
to the undefined. The response to an action is: ³This happened!²
DQ is a metaphysical description of a hierarchical moral order! This
implies that the inorganic order exists differently from an organic order as
a part of a moral schema. DQ is not an agent of change. As a basis for
morality DQ is a hierarchical order in existence from lower ³Inorganic² to
higher ³Intellectual².
An order of manifestation, like a ³word², is different from an order of
existence like ³the octave²! As an analogy to DQ I propose the musical
octave as the schema for evolution, as expressed by Maurice Nicoll in
Psychological Commentaries
I shy away from an abstract/concrete division because ³abstract² is a term
used by Aristotle to describe an ³essence being abstracted from the thing
and given intentional existence in a mind² in his theory of knowledge.
Intentional existence has been debunked in pragmatic thought. ³Abstract²
has a lot of baggage.
For me it is useful to use Bo¹s description of the intellectual level as SOL
as a metaphysical acronym like MOQ.
(previously posted!)
On Wednesday 14 May 2008 9:29 AM Arlo writes to Platt
<snip>
[Joe]
I want to play with Bo¹s letters for the intellectual level, SOL. The level
above SOL, is a MOQ meta-level, CL2 (Conscious Level 2,). And the highest
level possible is CL1 (Conscious Level 1). I guess the Social level becomes
COL (Conscious Objective language) in the undefined use of Conscious. The
lower level for chatting purposes is based on cell-wall penetration in
reproduction RPOL (Reproducing Penetration Objective Language). The
preceding level by reproduction is RDOL (Reproducing Dividing Objective
Language). The Inorganic level is RCOL (Reproducing Colliding Objective
Language). RCOL, RDOL, RPOL, COL, SOL, CL2, CL1. Fun! Playing with
letters!
Joe
>
> Hi Squonk. Ron, DMB and all,
>
> Bo¹s SOL usefully describes Aristotle¹s
> division as a level of evolution, the intellectual level.
>
> Ron:
> I thought that was RMP who posited this in reference to the
> origins of western cultural intellectual patterns. Bo maintains
> that making the abstract/concrete grammatical distinction of axiom
> is THE intellectual level of the human enterprise. It was
> a Greek convention spread with the expansion of Alexander the greats
> empire which was the first to conquer most of the known world.
> This leaves out the shoulders of hundreds of years of the great
> Intellectual thinkers who preceded Aristotle's axioms of logic
> not to mention the intellectuals of the east and the world history
> before or aside from Aristotle's method.
> SOL is an explanation to support this fallacious claim
> which fails even in this regard. It can not explain how MoQ
> fits into it's own interpretation. It must invent a 5th level
> to accommodate it and append half of the MoQ to fit the interpretation.
> Bo's SOL smacks of intellectual absolutism, which I shy from.
> I hope you can understand why I choose not to subscribe anymore.
> Thanks Joe.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
