At 01:12 AM 11/11/2008, you wrote:
Hi Marsha --
At 12:50 PM 11/10/2008, you wrote:
To intellectualize is to reason objectively. Can anyone deny this?
I'd like to know exactly how you are defining the word 'objectively'?
I define "objective" as the dictionary does: "Having the status of
or constituting an object ...as belonging or related to an object to
be delineated." The things we reason about are causes and effects,
human virtues, proper or expedient actions, probable risks or
outcomes, punitive judgments, and logical propositions -- all of
which are based on a relational world of objective phenomena.
Greetings Ham,
I asked about your use of the word 'objectively' because within the
MOQ there are no objects. There are static patterns of value which
are analogues and generalities. And SPoVs are interrelational, not
the product of cause and effect. To my way of thinking, the MOQ is
about relationship , not differences.
Marsha
p.s. I can quite easily create a painting using a monotone.
This is true even in the art world with which you are familiar. You
select a scene or motif to paint from a variety of possible
subjects, choose colors that contrast or blend with each other, and
decide on the focal element relative to the composition. The
composer of music works the same way, usually starting with a theme
he wants to develop, scoring harmonies, variations, rythyms and
tempos from the options available, and deciding on the instruments
or orchestration that will be most effective. Try painting or
scoring in a monotone. Try reasoning about a monad. It doesn't get
you very far. In fact, it's impossible.
Why do you think Pirsig refued to define Quality? Why do you
suppose I had to search back to the 15th century to find a
definition for Essence that could be expressed as a logical proposition?
We live in a relational world and are so accustomed to
differentiation and variety that we take it for granted. All our
reasoning depends on the relationship of one thing to
another. Intellection, or logical analysis, is comparative. A = B,
not C. X relates to Y, not Z. If A is the cause of B, and B
equals C, A is the cause of C. And so on. If you're dealing with
an absolute, your logic is limited to A is A, which is hardly an
intellectual breakthrough.
I guess you get the idea. I'll be interested to see how you challenge it.
Regards,
Ham
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/
.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.
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/
