Ian, Steve, Craig, All (I change the subject line because here we are on to something big)
24 Nov. Ian wrote: > So Craig, Steve, ... that SOMist discrepancy (problem) between > concepts and SOMist reality, that inevitable, (fundamental) > relationship between the static and dynamic, so hard to define in > SOMism, is recast by MoQism as a reality more fundamental than SOmist > reality. Agree with Ian about MOQ postulating a reality more fundamental than SOM's, hopefully he agrees with me that this reality is the DQ/SQ one ...not a Quality/MOQ, because the latter - in the reality/concept form - is merely the S/O one. > At the risk of being crass, we change the name for this thing bad > (problem / discrepancy) to good (quality / fundamental reality) and > get on with living quality. Are we nearly there yet ? Ian I had problems following this, but having I read Craig' below .... well I'm not all sure, maybe Ian will elaborate. Craig had quoted LILA: > > "In his last unfinished work, Some Problems of Philosophy, James > > had condensed this description to a single sentence: "There must > > always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the > > former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and > > flowing." Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had > > used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality. What > > the Metaphysics of Quality adds to James's pragmatism and his > > radical empiricism is the idea that the primal reality from which > > subjects and objects spring is value. By doing so it seems to unite > > pragmatism and radical empiricism into a single fabric." ( RMP, > > "Lila", p. 418) William James was a par with ZMM's Phaedrus by having found a pre- something that had been split S/O, but HERE he speaks about the discrepancy between the S and O, not the one between the pre- something and the S/O. This point must be kept clear or all goes haywire. Phaedrus had called the pre-something "pre-intellectual" and the S/O "intellectual", but here for some inexplicable reason he equalizes MOQ's dynamic/static discrepancy with the reality/concept - which is a variant of the S/O - so no wonder many have gone astray here. 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/
