Marsha. On 2 Nov. you wrote:
> It is pretty, isn't it? I knew I was getting myself into trouble by > not using 2 + 2 = 4. But E = mc² is gorgeous, as was Einstein. 2+2=4 is logic, not in the same class as E=MC2 which shows - through logic and knowing what the symbols symbolize - that matter and energy is interchangeable. Even animals can think in the 2+2=4 sense, meaning that INTELLIGENCE has its root in the biological level (brain). The intellectual level however uses intelligence for its own purpose (like the social level did before it ...and still does) > By what rules do YOU determine what is an Intellectual spov? By their explicit or implicit S/O content. > Quantum mechanics is relational. The E = mc² expresses special > relativity. You seem to want to apply a rigid attribute/criterion to > Int. spovs that should not be there. I know of no such prohibition > within the MOQ that would exclude relativity, and I don't understand > relativity to be objective. About "something as objective" The MOQ did not appear complete, but began (in ZAMM) as a protest against SOM, i.e. the postulation of an objective realm pittet against a subjective one. This (S/O) young P. of ZAMM found led into absurdities and hence his Quality insight that the S/O distinction being the result of a deeper reality that he called Quality. Thus SUBJECTIVITY as the well as OBJECTIVITY has no relevance in the MOQ .... outside the intellectual level of the final MOQ in my opinion. > Is E = mc² the pattern? Or is there a whole lot S/O > of ideas associated with it and part of the pattern? On the intellectual level the said equation subjectively symbolizes an objective reality. The MOQ itself (the "Q-level") is not concerned with if the static patterns are subjective or objective, as said this distinction does not have any relevance, here only the DQ/SQ distinction counts. > Yes, of course I want. I do not understand your explanation. I know > you understand it, but I do not. It isn't easy to shift from one metaphysics to another, there are no overlappings, it's the inside-out-turning of our existential sock. From SOM's stinking reality to the fresh air of the MOQ. > Everything-is-connected-to-everything. How would you categorized that > statement? This sounds like (having found) an objective truth and as such intellectual, but is it one that a new metaphysics can be built on that transcends intellect? No, in my opinion, it's as stale as the Quality=Reality sentence. Only with the DQ/SQ split and the static levels the deed was done. > Do you think it falls short of being an Int. spov? Please explain. > And please give us your rules for what can legitimately fall into the > Intellectual Level? You seem to use some kind of criterion. I have just done it. 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/
