Ham 18 Sep. you spoke:
> After I said that Aristotle is not to be faulted for launching the > objective approach to knowledge (which some regard as "intellectual"), > you fault me for doing the same thing ... Objective approach to knowledge? I would say that "knowledge" is the objective (scientific) approach, but OK. Bo before: > > Right, here is the crux where you are well-meaning but wrong. > > Science is the essence of the intellectual level, that of a human > > mind exploring a physical universe. Philosophy on the other hand > > believes itself to be above science, but is firmly based on the same > > S/O-intellectual outlook. This includes your own Essence, and > > Pirsig's Quality as essence with the MOQ a theoretical ordering. > > The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide, this is the metaphysical > > equivalent to Newton's physical revolution. > "Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a > definition of Science. If you mean that experiential knowledge is the > goal of Science, I would agree. Scientific methodology is the logical > approach to understanding physical reality. Your refusal to look through the MOQ "glasses" makes it difficult. Anyway, intellect is the distinction between a reality out there and a mind in here, but as the level grew more complex and the apparatus to test its conclusions got more sophisticated, paradoxes proliferated, the latest demonstrated by Quantum Physics. > But physical reality is not the primary essence, and as I've said > previously, objective knowledge is not wisdom (true insight), and > Science is not Philosophy. The distinction between a (physical) reality and an observing subject first paradox is that one of these must be primary - the source of the other (the materialist/ idealist quarrel). This has gone on since time immemorial and is what the MOQ reveals as futile because it stems from the S/O distinction being static. Your "essence" belongs to the idealist camp. Bo before: > > This is what the Newton example in ZAMM says: > > A great new insight/revelation comes along and in a > > crystallizing process it transforms the future, present > > and PAST in its picture. That you (Ham) don't get this > > message, but go on thinking that intellect is the ordering > > mind is forgivable, but that the moqists around this site > > ignore it is a tragedy. > How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from? > The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of > DQ. A new INTELLECTUAL insight (like Newton's) comes along by intellects premises being manipulated by intelligence's logical gates. > I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a > relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and > cogency as "insight". Neither the value that is sensed nor the > awareness that senses it is an "existent". All insight is proprietary > to the individual observer. And that includes the appearance of > physical phenomena (i.e., experiential reality). An animal may have an "insight" about new ways to get food, but this is not intellect and you can't call it (the ways) proprietary to a crow (for instance) there is not individuality (subjectivity) at the biological level. All this value-talk belongs to MOQ's "meta-level" > Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question: > Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical > equivalent to Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of > its realization by the cognizant mind? The MOQ does not exist independently of SOM, this had to be achieved before the total picture could be seen. SOM is the distinction between a cognizant mind and a non-cognizant world so in that sense "a cognizant mind" is necessary (at least) for a material universe". However in a MOQ retrospect the mind/matter distinction is itself a Q- development (its 4th. level) so in the total picture - no - the Quality- ordered universe is not dependent on a mind. It HAS neither mind nor matter except as an aggregate. > In other words, can a universe exist without sensible awareness? That, > I think, is the fundamental issue in this discussion. Listen, the MOQ postulates that the intellectual level creates (your) cocksureness that only a mind can make a physical universe become existent. The social level is/was not aware of any such distinction. There were (is for people still at that level) it) no mind that perceived a physical reality, rather everything was guided by forces that permeated the world. These could be manipulated by correctly performed rituals (a remnant is religious prayers and sacraments). Intellect looks down on this as ignorance or superstition, but the MOQ brings intellect a peg down too. Can we be more fundamental? 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/
