Greetings Bo,
I want to think some more about the Quality/DQ confusion. They are
the same for me. They both point to the same indivisible,
undefinable and unknowable. I don't really get the problem.
In our culture SOM rules (outside our little circle that is) and you are
right, it (SOM) is not recognized as "official metaphysics", rather
regarded as how reality IS assembled from the factory. Once SOM is
seen that way (as a metaphysics) scales fall from people's eyes and is
why Strawson - in his critique of LILA - was so keen on denying any
SOM.
A problem may be that metaphysics, any metaphysics, may be seen as a
dirty word right now. It was religion, and now it is science that is
playing the subject/object-pipes for all to follow.
> Reality as a s/o duality in its various forms seems to have been the
> most common point-of-view within the philosophical circles, including
> periods where one was rejected countered by periods when the other was
> rejected. I doubt that common people thought about it at all; I would
> guess that they had been indoctrinated with a 'theological
> determinism'.
Right! SOM has alternated between the subjective and objective
extremes ever since the Greeks started the see-saw with the Sophists'
subjectivism ("Man the measure" of what's true) versus Plato's
objectivity (Truth is independent of Man) No sooner is one accepted as
self-evident before the other starts rising. This is so because they are
interdependent, one presupposes the other.
They are interdependent! You are correct. I didn't see that before.
> Overthrow? How? It is hard enough to overthrow the idea of
> subjects and objects within one's individual brain. The ego portion
> of the self seems to exist because of it.
If the MOQ is to replace SOM and "subsume it (SOM) under its own
system" it means revolution (overthrowing) Yes, the ego, self,
consciousness are all SOM's work and it may be retained as static
intellectual values - for valuable it is - but with the overall MOQ context
in mind.
Self is valuable, as is science, if seen from the MOQ point-of-view,
otherwise it's nothing but ego, conflict and repeating the same old
mistakes over and over and over.
> BTW, have you ever listened to explanations of Quantum Theory&etc.?
> If it wasn't labeled science, it could only be called mysticism.
Yes, I know, but do you recommend any particular lecture on this issue
(a link)
I am going through three dvd courses on Quantum Theory, all for
non-scientists. I am in the middle of the second which is primarily
on particle physics. It is sooo interesting, but I am continuously
shocked by the objectivity in the language. They talk with a
Baconian attitude, and I wonder if they really think that
way. Here's a point-of-view I think is more helpful.
Fritjof Capra, The Systems View of Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_MDRI-Q76o&feature=related
> > In my opinion DQ is the ocean and the waves the static levels with
> > ripples on top of the waves= static patterns.
> I don't know how to state it in a rational sentence, but to me the
> movement of those waves requires the static and dynamic. As one
> goes deeper into the ocean, the static falls away.
Well, the static may fall away, but where waves are they are ocean
waves, there is no particular depth the OCEAN changes to dynamic
ocean/static ocean.
I think we agree that waves and ocean are both ocean. And while I'm
at it, other than as a mathematical model, how static is a wave?
I hope all is going well with your painting.
Marsha
_____________
The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
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/
