DMB and MD
June 30 you wrote:
> The MOQ says there is always a discrepancy between thoughts and reality
MOQ's basic (always) "discrepancy" is DQ/SQ and the
Quality/Concept discrepancy can NOT be deduce from it. On the other
hand is the Quality/Concept distinction easily identified as a S/O
offshoot. (Quality=objective/concepts=subjective) There certainly is
such a discrepancy, namely intellect's static value).
> and SOM says there are subjective ideas and objective reality are
> discrete, discontinuous entities. In both cases we have a distinction
> but that's about all there is to the similarity.
Right, subjective ideas = concepts and objective reality = Quality and I
can't for the life of me see how the MOQ can survive with SOM
offshoot looming above it. The only solution is making SOM = MOQ's
4th static level, only then does the Q-equation come out right.
> Since the MOQ denies subjects and objective reality ARE concepts, it's
> just plain goofy to say that Pirsig's distinction amounts to SOM.
Did you mean to say "The MOQ denies subjects and objects reality
because they are concepts"? The MOQ surely denies that the
subject/object divide is fundamental, but denying reality to anything on
the ground of being "conceptual" (conveyed by language) is intellect's
business not MOQ's.
> In the MOQ, it is a simple container problem. In the MOQ, experience IS
> reality. The primary empirical d reality is undifferentiated or
> pre-conceptual while concepts ARE differentiations.
The MOQ says that Quality is Reality, but it also says that there is a
split between the dynamic, undifferntiated reality and the static
differentiated reality. However, there is nothing about the latter being
"conceptual". Language did not occur until the social level. Come to
your senses.
> I mean, you've confused two completely different distinctions. But
> then, I've already responded to this charge several times. To make it
> stick, don't you need to show that the MOQ's distinction between
> concepts and reality is the same as SOM's distinction between words and
> what's "out there"? And isn't that impossible because in the MOQ, there
> is no "out there" there. In the MOQ "out there" IS a concept, not
> reality.
No, I don't confuse, you do. MOQ's metaphysical distinction is the
DQ/SQ one and this has no real/irreal content, while SOM has tons of
it. This REAL/IRREAL aggregate is what SOM has been about from its
start with the Greeks. Truth/ appearance, eternal/perishable,
permanent/provisional, primary/secondary ....etc. Don't you see a
shade of this with your Quality as real and concepts as irreal.
Again: With S/O as MOQ'a intellectual level the Q-equation comes out
neatly without any ugly loose ends.
Bodvar
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/
