Hi Bo, I will work on the complications. Thank you! for your encouragement, and the Time you have put into MOQ.
Joe On 7/13/09 11:14 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Joe > > I've noticed comments from you that includes me, but I have > developed some eye problem (when gazing at the screen for a long > time some strange patterns start to appear) I must simply limit myself > ...give priority to "saving the MOQ" :-) > > However, this your input goes to the heart of the matter: > >> Imho (in my humble opinion), MOQ (Metaphysics Of Quality) reasonably >> changed the basis of the logic of SOM (Subject Object Metaphysics). > > Right you are. > >> SOM logic defines an undefined subject by the action of a defining >> verb. In the case of dividing by 0 this is illogical. Descartes >> states: ³I think therefore I am!² > > As ZAMM describes it SOM emerged as a result of the Greek > philosophical frenzy that brought that culture away from its old quality- > based (Aretê) reality. Now, with LILA this must be put into a Q-level > context and it's plain that SOM is the intellectual level emerging from > Aretê as the social level. And only now can Descartes' statement be > evaluated and we see that SOM (with him) had reached its final stage, > a mental (mind) realm totally removed the material one. After > Descartes - with the empiricist - arose the problem which of the two > realms is the real (causes the other) and that see-saw that has gone > up and down ever since. This quandary was what brought young > Phaedrus to despair and triggered his Quality insight that (as you so > correctly say) "...changed the basis of the logic of SOM" > >> The subject has only intentional existence. Aristotle defines motion >> in a similar way: ³The act of a being in potency in as much as it is in >> potency.² In SOM the subject is undefined (with only intentional >> existence from the object) and becomes defined by the action of the >> verb and object. E.g., the man is eating. The ³man² is defined in the >> eating, and we can distinguish the ³man² from a statue. > > This may be correct, but terribly complicated. SOM's problem is that > the subject can't exist without the world, and the world not without the > subject, i.e. the mind/matter duality is an aggregate and yet SOM's > logical base does not allow this so it's plain that a fundamental base > shift is needed ... just what the MOQ is and in its light the S/O > distinction becomes its STATIC intellectual level. This way the VALUE > is retained while the problems dissolve. > >> In MOQ (Metaphysics of Quality) the subject is defined in an >> evolutionary hierarchy. The object, the level of evolution, is >> defined in the action, SOL. > > At least the above about SOM = the intellectual level is the SOL > interpretation. > > Yours sincerely > > 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/ 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/
