Krimel.
On 5 July. you wrote:
> Just to jump in and clarify something here. To the extent that
> "reality" is infinitely divisible, constantly changing, and
> unpredictable I agree that that is what DQ means. To the extent that
> concepts are static descriptions of this dynamic flux, order emerging
> from chaos, I agree that that is what SQ means.
That DQ means "infinitely divisible, constantly changing, and
unpredictable" (plus some more of the same adjectives) I agree with,
but then you say:
"To the extent that concepts are static descriptions of this
dynamic flux ...etc .. I agree that that is what SQ means".
But "dynamic" is a concept too so it's complete and utter nonsense to
postulate concepts as identical to the DQ/SQ split. Language is the
ocean we swim in and can not be included in any metaphysics without
ending in absurdities. It can only be said - as the true MOQ does -
that it arrived with the social level. Full stop!
[Krimel]
> Bo is utterly confused about the relationship of concepts to percepts.
> There is not sensible way to understand the claim that the MoQ is not
> a set of concepts.
Concept=language no?
I thought your disagreement with DMB was your (rightfully) showing
him that there is nothing that's isn't conveyed by language - in other
words that intellect's "reality/language" dichotomy is invalid in a
fundamental sense, i.e. it's STATIC meaning if pursued far enough it
dissolves. However that does not mean that "all is mind", it means
that neither of intellect's two poles are valid alone. "Reality/language"
is an aggregate. ..... and that equating this with MOQ's fundamental
DQ/SQ is wrong, WRONG, W R O N G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
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/
