Andre, Move on, or not. I still think Bo has the better point-of-view. The best would be not to have a point-of-view. I'm working on it.
Thanks. Marsha On May 12, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Arlo to Marsha: > > [Arlo] > Hence, ALL intellectual patterns are misconceived, as this "misconception" > defines SOM. > > Again, if ALL intellectual patterns are SOM, there is no conflict in ZMM as > both the Sophists and Aristotle were peddling the same SOM-Intellect. > > [Marsha] > What? > > [Arlo] > ".. all intellectual patterns are SOM." > > "Intellectual patterns are misconceived as independent self and other". > > These two sentences say the exact same thing. > > SOM = conceived as independent self and other. > > Hence, all intellectual patterns are misconceived as independent self and > other. > > Again, if this is the case... if ALL intellect is SOM by definition... then > where is the conflict in ZMM between the Sophists and Aristotle? BOTH were > peddling SOM. > > Andre: > Hi Arlo, Marsha, dmb: > > You've got it pretty well nailed Arlo. Congratulations! > > 'The Metaphysics of Quality asks:Which values is science unconcerned > with?...But can he argue that the moral question, "Is it all right to fake > your scientific data?" is not a scientific question?...If he gets tricky and > tries to say that that is a moral question about science which is not part of > science, then he has committed schizophrenia. He is admitting the existence > of a real world that science cannot comprehend. > What the Metaphysics of Quality makes clear is that it is only social values > and morals, particularly church morals and values science is unconcerned > with.(LILA Chapter 24) > > I have dug this up from the Archives in a post Anthony wrote to Matt (sorry I > have no date): > > "...you can see how SOM developed from first just being a methodological > assumption for mechanics with Galileo ( i.e. where the observer is abstracted > out of the picture), then to Newton who (when developing Galileo's work on > mechanics) added the assertion that an observer only has perceptions when > acted upon by material substances, then finally, as an ontological assumption > in philosophy when Locke and Descartes concluded(wrongly) that a Newtonian > observer had to be some sort of mental substance absolutely different from a > material one." > > I have also tried to convey this to Bodvar but alas. > > Can we move on now? > > > > 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 ___ 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
