Hello Ron
Answer me: Are you Ron Kulp or some other Ron?
10 Nov. :
I had pointed to ZAMM's
And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge
had never been taken before in the history of Western thought,
went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity
dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a
part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the
two.
and added:
> > "Neither part of mind ..." means just what I said; in the MOQ the
> > mind/matter, subject/object or any derivatives thereof are abolished,
> > this aggregate is relegated the role of its 4th. level. Thus saying that
> > the MOQ is a thought has no relevance inside the MOQ.
Ron:
> Saying that it is a static pattern of value cerainly does. If the MoQ
> can be written about, thought about and communicated, it is a static
> pattern of value,
No offense, but are you completely dense? Writing, saying or thinking
about DQ doesn't make it a static pattern of value, thus the MOQ
(which is the very DQ/SQ metaphysics) is no intellectual pattern
...least not by THAT criterion.
This is the jam that "intellect as manipulations of symbols" leads into.
The said manipulation IS language and if language is made into
intellect everything is intellect, because we use language ... even to
point to a non-linguistic reality.
No, language is merely a social pattern adopted by intellect (like it did
biological intelligence by way of society) and as is its wont split both
along its S/O fault line. Language became a subjective (menu) that
speaks about objective dishes, and - likewise - intelligence became
subjective thinking about the alleged reality ity out there.
> Just as SOM. MoQ dissolves S/O by saying they are both static patterns
> of value. Both the menu and the reality we percieve. SOM typically
> understands that "entities" and "entites understood" are the same in
> objective reason and are assumed as reality itself. much the way you
> posit MoQ as being reality itself when MoQ specifically states as a
> core tenet that reality, Quality, is dynamic and may not be defined
> nor understood less it become static.
It's difficult to catch your meaning, at the least the MOQ dissolves
SOM by making the S/O aggregate *) its own intellectual level! Inside
that level however the "S" corresponds to the menu and the "O" to
reality, thus if the MOQ is regarded an intellectual pattern it becomes a
menu describing MOQ ... and the Quality Idea is gone with the wind
*) for aggregate or distinction it is. Like light/darkness there can't be
one without the other and is why subjectivity (the Sophists) came to be
along with objectivity (truth).
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/
