Hi Ham
24 Jan.
I had said
> > Nothing teleological about the MOQ. It postulates a dynamic flight
> > AWAY from stability, thus the levels are not "planned" in
> > beforehand, but the necessary outcome of the escape from the
> > previous level.
Ham
> I'm not so keen on a "flight away from stability". In fact, my
> understanding of evolution is that it moves naturally chaotic
> processes and events TOWARDS stability (or cogency, if you will). Do
> you view Darwin's law of natural selection, for example, as a flight
> toward instability? The development of living species with the
> ability to think for themselves and manipulate their environment is a
> highly ordered process involving the synergy of disparate inorganic
> and organic elements into a complex but stable form ("pattern" to
> you).
Your not being "keen on" the MOQ isn't news, and I also know that
current evolutionary theory isn't about "flight away from stability".
Now, to be exact Pirsig actually says:
All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward
Dynamic Quality."
but migration towards dynamic must also mean a flight away from
static
Darwin's evolution theory is science and I "..leave unto science
what science's is" it's when it comes to how life emerged in the
first place that MOQ's adds something useful. The dynamic
"dislike" of inorganic stability resulted in biological stability which in
turn resulted in social stability and - finally - intellectual stability.
> Intellectual level's conviction? I would call it an intellectual
> perspective which, perhaps, leads to a personal conviction (or
> precept). But then, of course, I do not recognize "intellect" as a
> supra-human realm of existence as you do.
It's the "anthromorphizing" issue, but I don't put anything more in it
than a manner of speech, and I also know until nausea that you
don't buy the level tenet, but this is a MOQ discuss.
> By the way, how would you categorize the American Philosophical
> Society? Does a society of intellectual people subordinate their
> "social level" to their "intellectual level"? I doubt that the social
> director of this august group would accept that premise.
The APS may have a Q-social component at its core (it gives the
members a certain social status and celebrity) but it is totally
intellect-dominated, like most western countries have social value
at their base but these are overlaid by intellectual values. Can't see
why this would be unacceptable to the director .... if he knew the Q
context.
> Where is the fury? I just don't see the relevance of your point.
> Certainly we are all influenced to some degree by the thoughts that
> have preceded us. In that sense, learning (the acquisition of
> knowledge) is cumulative. Mythos is the "residue". Myths are what
> remain of the collective culture to impede its advances. But
> invention, new ideas, revolutionary concepts, intellectual
> breakthroughs are the contributions of individuals who rise above the
> mythos and think for themselves.
Like the Church authorities you refuse to look through MOQ's
"Galilean" telescope that reveals a new perspective, you stick to
SOM's "holy scriptures" whose perspective is as you sketch it.
> Difference is negated from Essence with no loss of absolute integrity.
> The "aspects" of differentiation and the emergence of otherness in
> space/time are precisely what Essence is NOT.
This is a variety of the fallacious pure Quality of which MOQ is a
corruption, this is wrong Quality IS the MOQ. I suggest that space,
time and everything that constitutes our existence are "static"
aspects of a "dynamic" Essence, but that would make
Essentialism a copy of the MOQ and I guess that's anathema-
> Man is the value-sensible 'negate'. He projects 'nothingness' into his
> experienced reality, bringing value into the world as delimited
> (finite) being. But in metaphysical terms, self/other existence
> (being-aware) is illusory -- a valuistic product of cognizant
> experience. There are no "subsets", except those constructed by the
> human intellect. So you need not fear having to turn theological on my
> behalf.
But would there be any Essence without "man"? Course not and in
that case Essence is a fallout of Man and and Metaphysics of Man
(MOM) is called for. I am fully aware of Man's central role, so
central that it can't be part of argument or - as said a billion times -
a MOM is needed, and IMO as a copy of the MOQ ... fine with me,
it's the Dynamic/Static and static levels that counts.
> Your hang-up or "weak spot", as I see it, is your failure to see the
> time continuum as a characteristic of human experience as opposed to
> an inherent property of the universe. If nothing else, this obsession
> with history challenges me to present my ontology from a different
> slant. And I appreciate the opportunity.
SOM's "final world" Immanuel Kant postulated that time, space,
causation is "the world for us" while the "inherent properties of the
the universe" (world in itself) is out of reach. This you seemingly
subscribe to, something that makes you an inhabitant of MOQ's
intellectual level, i.e. not the ultimate vantage point.
I have no illusions about the two of us converting each other, but
it's interesting and compared to some moqists you are a true
philosopher.
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/
