Ian.
22 July you wrote:
> To change just one of Bo's word - given that MoQ levels are a
> historical picture of static patterns ...
> "And this attitude WAS intellect."
No it's still the intellectual LEVEL's premises However, I can't help
how some perceive the term "intellect". At least the Q-intelletual
level has come a long way from the first Greek philosophers, but in
retrospect we see that it has its root here..
> Scary how many people still talk of science as if we were
> pre-Schroedinger, Heisenberg et al. As Max Born said way way back
> "Theoretical physics is actual metaphysics."
> No thougtful scientist "believes" in an objective reality beyond the
> pragmatic conventions and methods of his day job, like we all do, to
> avoid stubbing our toes on the philosopher's stone. The problem is not
> with scientists, but with caricatures that cast their static patterns
> in stone.
Regardless the various Quantum-based utterings about physics as
"pragmatic conventions") science goes on. Multi-billion colliders
are built (CERN) and this would not be done if it wasn't that physic
is convinced that there is a NATURE independent of cultural
conventions.
But physics is part of intellect - the static level - we are supposed
to view things from MOQ's meta-level and seen from there
".theoretical physics is actual metaphysics". The static intellectual
level is - or at least was - SOM. This is the Marsha issue. She
referred to some Eastern wisdom that:
".. any positive assertion ("it is", or "it is not") made about -
or view proclaimed of - phenomena must be regarded as
merely conventional (savti or lokavyavahara).
This (I claim) is identical to young Phaedrus frightening insight that
sent him on the lateral drift. But what you (all) seem to overlook it
the further development, namely that P.. postulated that the SOM
is the static side to existence - what he also called INTELLECT .
In the final MOQ the 4th. level should have been kept the S/O
distinction (our present Western scientific modern reality) this
interpretation creates a credible social/intellectual moral code, but
is prevented by an inability to snap out of SOM (where
intellect=thinking and all thoughts are intellectual patterns)
When Schrodinger and Heisenberg went to their laboratories they
donned their S/O frocks, but when they wrote (about their
discoveries' philosophical implications) they may have been on the
brink of a Quality-like breakthrough, but that took another century
... and is far from established.
IMO
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/
