Hello Mel. On 20 Sep. you wrote:
(Bo) > >...But the the crucial question is: What role is > > SOM relegated inside MOQ's static realm and my thesis is that it is > > the intellectual level - all of it (the SOL interpretation). > (mel) > This is an intriguing question you pose, Bo. > My initial reaction is: > Clearly the SOM has been a valuable tool in the intellectual toolbox; > it has allowed us to discern the anecdotal or opinion from the more > statistically visible and repeatable observation. (Highly useful on > static subjects as modelled in the intellect.) I do, however believe > that SOM is merely one of many available tools, and we make more all > the time, and not all of quality is a 'fit' for the SOM socket. > I must think further on this. What you write is the usual approach, the S/O is one tool in an intellectual toolbox - or level - a good tool, but there may be other other non-S/O tools in there. Isn't that how you reason? This was my approach at first, but I soon realized that it fails. F.ex. if we compared it with the biological level the many organisms are classified as belonging to the biological "box" for the reason of being alive (the inorganic and social levels have their own characteristics) Mustn't we conclude that the intellectual patterns must have one quality in common? And what is this ? Nothing has to this day emerged except "thoughts" or "ideas", but this is SOM's "mind" and can't be valid in a metaphysics that has rejected the mind/matter distinction. You say you "..feel like coming into the middle of a discussion" and you certainly do, we have discussed this for ages. Yet, when you said "Good point" (about the one below) > > The MOQ says that the intellectual level was the introduction of a > > physical universe in contrast to a ordering mind, but it also says that > > inside that level it looks as if such an universe/mind split has existed > > always and will go on for ever. 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 goes on thinking that intellect is > > the ordering mind is forgivable, but that the moqists around this site > > ignore it is a tragedy. I thought you had understood the SOL because the paragraph actually says that the S/O distinction is the intellectual level. OK, keep thinking. 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/
