Hi Ham
22 Nov. you wrote:
after I had written:
> > This is the old "bone". You consider Man (we allow a bit political
> > incorrectness) as existence's rock bottom (why I compare you with
> > Phaedrus) I understand you perfectly. To say that there's anything
> > outside Man is futile, but therefore it must be suspended ......OR
> > a Man metaphysics (MOM) constructed in the same manner as the MOQ
> > with the same Absolute/Differentiated divide and differentiated
> > levels.
Ham:
> I consider Man (being-aware) as the creator of "things". The
> "anything outside Man" is the "bone". Only by suspending this
> existential bone can we realize that a relational system of objects
> and events emerging spontaneously in space/time is not ultimate
> reality. Its infinite regression of prior causes is a logical
> absurdity. Appearance and reality are two very different entities.
I thought of suspending our discussion again, it leads nowhere, but
then your "man the creator" resembles ZAMM's re. "man the measure"
so if you will join me in a little discussion here? In the said book Pirsig
presents the Quality interpretation of what took place in Greece during
the known period. The cosmological "school" coming to a head with
Socrates and that his pupil Plato and the later Aristotle represent the
beginning of SOM. Against this Pirsig places the Sophists who
represent the old Aretê that he identifies with his Quality.
Now as SOM is the subject/object configuration, objectivism (in this
case the Cosmologists) could not rise without subjectivism arriving in
some form, and my thesis is that the said Sophist represented the
subjectivism and your "man the creator" makes me wonder if you
subscribe to subjectivism (idealism) Now, Pirsig insists that "man the
measure" is different from
"... man the source as the subjective idealists would say"
(ZAMM page 368)
But I have trouble seeing the distinction here. An idealist will assert
that the "anything outside man" is man's creation too. Is this your
position?
> If you cannot accept the fact that intellect is indigenous to man
> (which would make it "indigenous to existence"), I've lost you. You
> seem to imply that the ability to reason, compare, extrapolate,
> analyze, and conceptualize is (was) an evolutionary development of our
> species. I won't contest that, but I don't see what it has to do with
> philosophy or metaphysics. Why not focus on what man is NOW, in the
> world you and I live in.
I should have limited myself to the above, but here we go.
To you "intellect" is equal to intelligence, while it according to my
dictionary (compressed) is the ability to distinguish between what's
objective and what's subjective (exactly what MOQ's intellect is) Now,
there was a time before the Greeks (the social age) that used their
intelligence but this "philosophing" was from the premises of a God-
run reality (many in the mythologies or the one in religions) so
intelligence in the "comparing, extrapolate and conceptualize" sense
has a lot to do with ancient times (social level) but REASON (the S/O
distinction) only arrived with the intellectual level
> Let's assume modern man is a "fully developed" species.
It was fully developed biologically (a species) probably around Cro-
Magnon times (50 thousand years ago) Also regarding thinking as
intelligence. Before language this was by way of images, smell, taste,
only with language and did thinking become conceptual. OK, let this
rest.
> what is this mystical "leading edge" of intellect that so intrigues
> you?
The static evolution began with the inorganic level this must have been
"leading edge" for aeons before the biological level arrived. This goes
all the way up to the intellectual level (which isn't thinking in general
but the said S/O) and if this arrived with the Greeks it's been "leading
edge" for millenniums before the MOQ arrived. Intellect knew nothing
about being a level (it was like you Ham, assuming itself to be the way
things really are) not until the MOQ was the Q-context revealed.
> Is it Archimedes shouting: "Eureka! - I have found it!" when he
> discovered the principle of a lever to move the world? Had he reached
> the "leading edge" of what you call the Intellectual Level?
Very good! Think of the joy of the old mathematicians, geometricians,
thinkers arriving at these TRUTHS, your Archimedes, Pythagoras.
Euclid, Ptolemaios, the lot. They surely were pioneers (leading edge).
However the MOQ meaning of "leading edge" is as said up above.
> Are you saying that all the principles, equations, laws, and hypotheses
> that Man has constructed to define the natural world exist eternally at
> some extracorporal level? That they are not part of man's reasoning
> process?
The question if principles, equations, laws .. etc. exist independently
of man is not part of MOQ's repertoire, but is the very soul of the
intellectual level's objective-over-subjective camp. The subjective-
over-objective camp claims that everything including laws are
"perception forms" (ref. Immanuel Kant)
> You can lombast me all you want, but I'd really appreciate your candor
> here.
Thanks Ham.
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/
