Dear Ham, the last man standing! 19 Feb. you wrote:
Bo before: > > Yes, yes, from intellect's mind/matter point of view this is > > obvious. It's a subject - a mind - that interprets reality, that > > imposes meaning on an otherwise meaningless world. The argument is > > watertight and shockproof from intellect's S/O premises, but MOQ's > > premises is not that. Ham: > Experience IS "interpreting reality". Agree. No one living in an ordered universe can avoid interpreting reality (i.e. "having a metaphysics") > MOQ's premise is (or is alleged to be) a metaphysical theory. > Unlike experience, it is not "watertight or shockproof." In fact it > cannot be confirmed by the intellect or empirical experience. There's > nothing wrong with hypothesis (my ontology is also theoretical), except > when it rejects existential reality -- the self-evident objective world > we live in as cognizant subjects. The MOQ does not reject "the self-evident objective we live in asanything cognizant subjects". This is the highest static level. > In order to accept the premise of a unified Dynamic Quality, we have to > hypothesize that our "real world" does not exist. I have come to doubt Pirsig's interpretation of his own insight which was that reality isn't anything at all before an ordering of it. Thus the true MOQ is the "Dynamic not anything/Static something" While Pirsig speaks about a Dynamic not anything/Static MOQ. > Not even the MoQ can do this without positing levels of quality, the > divisions of which cannot logically be attributed to an undivided > source. I'm not sure what you say here, but your objection is that the above said "ordering of the dynamic not anything" must be dome by a cognizant subject. Right? And - again - this is self-evident at the subject/object level, but as I try to show we know that it hasn't always been self-evident. People of old (social level in the MOQ) did not speak about any subject self. You scoff at the level system, but I think it's the stroke of genius.. > Bo, don't you see that the "expressions" you list -- inorganic, > biological, social, and intellectual -- are all functions or processes > of objective phenomena relating to the individual and his experience? What you REALLY (want to) say is: "...don't you see that all this is the language and only man has language"? and the language issue we have exhausted. > Why do you insist that only inorganic phenomena are interactive? Don't > biological life forms interact? Aren't emotions a product of the > observer's interaction with experienced events? Don't we associate > numbers or facts intellectually when reasoning to a conclusion? Just a moment, inorganic patterns interact (by 4 known forces) and as the levels builds on top of each other they have in turn raised the basic inorganic interaction to ever greater heights. Biological interaction, social interaction intellectual ... if you must. > I won't even attempt to understand why you put "emotions" under > "social", since society is non-sentient and only the individual can > have emotions. The species called Homo Sapiens transcended the biological level because its social sense (that exist among higher animals) "took off on a purpose of its own" and started to dominate biology instead of being "in its service". Thus the social level is a "human level, but these humans had no feeling of being the source of emotions. Ham, pick up Homer's ILIAD and read the opening lines: "The Rage of Achilles ....what god drove them to fight with such a fury?". Everything at the social was god-given, the individual a helpless instrument of the divine play . Enough for now 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/
