On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:20 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> Marsha said to Horse:
> I had thought that the MoQ is beyond forcing a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer
> within a philosophical discussion? It wasn't the 'begging the question', so
> maybe my example was not a good one, if was the forced constraint.
> ``Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true
> precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of philosophic
> explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down into
> subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word
> quality cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not
> because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate
> and direct. (ZMM, Chapter 20)
> While this quote does not specifically address the yes/no dichotomy, it does
> point to the possible complexity of the response.
>
>
>
> dmb butts in because Marsha and John make butting in look so cool:
>
> It would make sense to post this quote if Andre had asked Bo to explain or
> define Quality.
I understand the distinction between subjects and objects on one side, and
Quality on the other side not the same as 'subjects and objects' as objects on
one side and 'dynamic and static' as objects on the other side.
> The terms "static" and "Dynamic" aren't used much in ZAMM and they don't
> appear in this quote at all but don't you think that's what he's saying here?
> It is another version of what he says in Lila, that there must always be a
> discrepancy between concepts and reality because concepts are static and
> reality isn't.
Hmmmm. Isn't the MoQ a monism?
> I don't it makes much sense to use the static/Dynamic distinction to shut
> down a conversation about the meaning of concepts. This is a philosophical
> discussion group, after all. So what could be more appropriate than asking a
> question about the other guy's concept?
> As for the yes/no thing, I'd guess that Andre just wanted a straight answer.
If the MoQ is a monism based on Quality, than:
``Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true
precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of philosophic
explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down into
subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word
quality cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because
Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct.
(ZMM, Chapter 20)
___
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/md/archives.html
