Hi Craig
On 3 Feb. you spoke:
DMB had said
> > subjects and objects are secondary, they are concepts
Craig
> So if I hold an object in my hand, I'm holding a concept in my hand?
> Craig
Good to see that sanity prevails :-) About subjects and objects
refers to the first proto-moq that only had one static "level", namely
the S/O aggregate. The consequence of the "Quality as dynamic/
MOQ as static" meta-metaphysics (the latter static because it is
verbal) is that DQ is a concept too.
I would however like to put this false dichotomy in a greater
context. We remember how young Phaedrus went to India
But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy
was blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the world
for what seemed the fiftieth time and Phædrus raised his
hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic
bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
illusory. The professor smiled and said yes. That was the
end of the exchange. Within the traditions of Indian
philosophy that answer may have been correct, but for
Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers
regularly and is concerned with such things as mass
destruction of human beings that answer was hopelessly
inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up.
This shows that Phaedrus didn't feel the Eastern notion of a
"dynamic" something versus language as adequate, and that the
preverbal/verbal wasn't equal to his Dynamic/Static. In ZAMM the
first deliberations on the Quality Idea was "pre-intellectual"
followed by "intellectual", but nothing about pre-verbal/verbal.
What disappoints me is the latter day Pirsig invoking the very
same eqation
IMO
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/
