Hi Ron 23 Feb. you spoke thus:
> So to get this straight, what defines the SOL > interpretations intellectual level is: > 1: Academic systemization 2: Atheism Yes, these are among the many inevitable fall-outs from the rational (objective) attitude. The academical system made religion a "field of study" which implies that it's (merely) a belief, thus atheism is a result from general knowledge and education. It did not spring ready-made from day one but the S/O seed was sown. Through Aristotle as a "Church Father" Christendom developed an intellectual strain so when the Renaissance came it was primed for giving way to another intellectual consequence: the secular state While the social locked culture "on the other shore" - Jewdom and its sequel Islam - can't create cvil democratic states, hence the notorous despotism that haunts the Muslim World .. and the orthodox Jews now in the process of destroying Israel. OK, enough on that matter. > we agreed previously on: > 3: The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles > of all things." Can't remember exactly such an agreement, but OK the search for eternal principles started the intellectual avalanche and those of Pythagoras and the mathematicians became part of the movement. > (but now it is called into question by your assertions on mathematics) No comprendo? > I would agree that your interpretation has it's greatest meaning of > begining and first principle of being in relation to Rene Descarte. In > his "Passions of the Soul" and "The Description of the Human Body " > in particular to your s/o arguement as it applies to an atheistic > approach. It is remarkable how most of the influentual philosophers > of this time period are and continue to be today, mathematicians as > Rene is. (which supports #3 in my opinion) OK > This leaves #3 as the sole attribute of the distnction of SOM in your > opinion The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the > principles of all things." for to believe this is to forsake all > explaination concerning Gods and exhaults mathematical explainations > over any other. Agree? It's difficult to attune to your peculiar reasoning, but it may be exactly what I mean. Once humankind got wind of something deeper than the old mythological, god-explained reality, its fate was closed ... in the immensely long run of course.. > Academic systemization can be traced back to the Pythagoreans, so it > supports your assertion that it began in ancient Greece but it did notble > formally shed it's theistic philosphical explainations until > Descartes. Agree, the long run I speak about. > so we are still left with the primacy of the defining SOM statement : > The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles of > all things." for it embodies atheism, s/o dualism, essentialism and > philosophic realism. Trying to find head & tail of your reasoning, a tentative "yes", but the first recognizable S/O only emerged with (what Matt calls) the Reality/ Appearance dualism.. 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/
