Bo, Ideas arent first, experience is first, then ideas. Ideas about experience are ideas. thus the idea of anything coming before experience is, in fact,
an idea. and yes Bo your not in kansas anymore. I represent the lulaby leage the lulaby leage the lulaby leage and in the name of the lulaby leage we'd like to welcome you to munchkin land ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:03:54 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Empirical and Historical Hi Craig Stand firm, you made my day be speaking against the idealism that has infested the MOQ discussion. The decay started by the latter-day Pirsig who - in "Lila's Child" introduced the "ideas come first" interpretation, then Paul Turner who is the Jesuit willing to defend the (owner of the) faith wherever it leads. He converted DMB and now as he is sanctified he has convinced the lesser mind that this is the correct interpretation. These midgets don't see that if this gets hold of the MOQ it turns into a subsidiary of SOM - of its idealist division - and all it's beauty and strength is gone. In ZAMM there is nothing about ideas coming early or late, rather that ideas where the chief instigator of SOM - Plato's - eternal (objective) component of the newfangled S/O aggregate. The fact that it went through a 180 degree turn with Aristotle - substance now becoming the objective part and by and by "ideas" becoming mind patterns and thus the subjective part - does not matter. To postulate inorganic VALUE patterns as DQ's first fallout does not mean a somist materialist (objectivst) turn (as Ron accused me of) accepting the DQ/SQ axiom has turned the table from SOM to MOQ. Again thanks Craig, I thought all MD had fallen for the "ideas first" hoax, Bodvar On 10 Jul 2009 at 21:59, Steve Peterson wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > > > [Steve] > >> DQ as pre-intellectual makes sense from the empirical perspective > >> where time itself is not a given but derived from experience. From > >> this perspective ideas come first > > [Craig, previously] > >> This seems contradictory. If the empirical perspective is > >> "pre-intellectual", then how can it be a perspective where > >> "ideas come first"? > > [Steve] > >> Ideas come first as in the dynamic/static split. They are the > >> first > >> static patterns > > > Craig: > > Pirsig mentions carbon static patterns, which must preceed ideas by > > millions of years. > > Steve: > From the historical point of view, carbon does indeed come before > ideas, but the historical point of view itself is an idea which > precedes the idea of carbon. So from an empirical point of view, > ideas come before carbon. > > > > > 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/ > > > 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/ 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/
