Hi Marsha,
> Dmb got you stumped? Steve: No. Why do you ask? Steve previously: >> SOM answers to this question vary. Such answers include Locke's notion >> that there are two types of substances: mental substance (minds) and >> material substance (objects). Other answers include collapsing >> everything into material substance or everything into material >> substance. Marsha: > ZZzzzzzzz Steve: If you have no interest in what SOM actually is, why would you want to say that he intellectual level is steeped in SOM? Steve: >> Now, where in all this do you get the notion that the fourth level of >> that hierarchy is SOM itself? Where are the mental substance and >> material substance that make up SOM ontology in this description? >> Nowhere of course. Intellect itself does not require that we postulate >> such substances. > Marsha: > Intellectual static patterns of value are reified concepts and the rules for > manipulating them, if not offer some examples. Steve: Your explanation of intellectual patterns has nothing to do with SOM. Marsha: >> We can think without making any assertions about >> ontology whatsoever. > Marsha: > The subject is intellectual patterns of value, not intellect which, by the > way, > is a reified concept. Steve: Yes, of course subjects and objects are intellectual patterns. That doesn't make intellect itself equivalent to SOM. So are lots of other things. Steve: >> Most people don't give any thought to >> metaphysics. They just follow static intellectual patterns of those >> who came before them, and SOME of these patterns rely on the S/O >> ontological assumptions. But we can even use the words "subject" and >> "object" themselves without any ontological implication that these >> represent two types of fundamental substances that constitute all of >> reality. It is only when we make this presupposition that we are doing >> subject-object metaphysics. Marsha: > SOM explanation through and through. Steve: I think you should try to figure out what SOM is before you say that. Marsha: > When a physicist can state that the equation calculating spin "is not > just mathematics, but Real", RMP might want to rethink his statement > about mathematics not having objects. Steve: In the equation "2+2=4" where are the subjects and and where are the objects? Best, Steve 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
