At 05:12 AM 11/17/2008, you wrote:
Marsha
16 Nov. you wrote:
Bo before:
> >The static inorganic level=the universe, if it is "conventional" or
> >not?
Marsha:
> You seem to be missing the word _referent_. An inorganic spov is a
> conventional, conceptual construct that refers to external phenomenon
> (that which you are calling the universe). Our senses are too
> limited, and our interpretation of sense experience too limited to say
> exactly what is that which you are calling the universe. That is why
> it is 'conventionally' understood. Quality is indivisible, undefinable
> and unknowable.
You haven't even begun to understand the MOQ's level aspect, that
there was a social era before the intellectual that knew no S/O
distinction*) and because you are lodged in S/O-intellect you have no
inkling that it means that INTELLECT is static (limited) too, but go on
speaking from intellect's premises as if these are identical to MOQ's.
You haven't even begun to understand patterns and are lodged in
subjects and objects. Yes, INTELLECT is static but has a
relationship with DQ. I do not know subjects or objects. In my
little patterns, if nothing else, there are only patterns. That you
cannot get this, is not my problem. Seems to me you are stuck in
your own invention.
I am speaking of patterns and from patterns. I'd like to think that
some might be intellectual. I do not accept your interpretation of
my interpretation.
NB! The social level is still part of our constitution, but the time when it
was "leading edge" does best reveal its significance.
The social reality level knew no "referent/what it refers to", no
"internal/external", "conceptual/non-conceptual" or any other S/O
distinctions. The referent and what it referred to was united. Language
wasn't concepts about something else, the names had magical
significance. Rituals (song and dance) could alter the course of events
.... etc
Unconscious spovs (conventional, conceptual constructs) like ritual
are still conventional, conceptual constructs.
You think that this was ignorance (which it was in a static context) and
that (our intellectual) "... our interpretations of sense experience being
limited" i.e. that there is an objective reality out there that our senses
just give us a subjective variety of ..... that this corresponds to
MOQ's DQ/SQ distinction. "O Sancta Simplicitas" (as the Roman said)
I never used the word ignorance. And I do not believe anything gives
anything. Experience is the ever-changing, _interrelated_,
overlapping, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static
patterns of value and DQ within Quality. How you manage to change
that statement into a subject/objected dualistic p-o-v is a mystery to me.
If MOQ's primary purpose is to replace SOM's "in here/out there"
dichotomy as existence's fundamental chasm, then to say that it (the
S/O) corresponds to MOQ'S Static/Dynamic dichotomy is hilarious ..
hadn't it been so disastrous.
I didn't use the terms "in here/out there". Stop misquoting me. I
suggest that a way to interpret what I was saying was that concept
was equivalent to static patterns, and non-concept is equivalent to DQ.
Marsha
.
.
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/
