On 2010-09-17 21:59, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
[Magnus]
Didn't you read my complete post? I compared that dependency which you defend,
with other, much more direct dependencies.
[Arlo]
My apologies. I am used to words meaning what they mean. A fish is dependent on
water, it may survive for a short while when taken out of water, but it will
eventually die. This is dependency. Just because it does not die IMMEDIATELY
does not make it less of dependency.
Ok, ok. There are different degrees of dependency, or rather time
frames. But why would the intellectual level be so much less dependent
on lower levels than all other levels are? And especially since we *can*
find a better dependency.
[Magnus]
I'm sorry but you're simply stuck in old ways of thinking. It's *not* more
accurate to my analogy.
[Arlo]
It is, Magnus, and I'm sorry unable to see that.
I explained why it was not accurate. Would you mind doing the same?
Without the surround of sociality, intellect will never appear. When deprived
of sociality, intellect inevitably decays. This is dependency in every sense of
the word.
Not the same sense as other levels.
You can not remove a lower level from the MOQ and expect a higher level to
continue.
I'm not. I just explained how I replace it, in my last post to Platt a
few hours ago. I know very well that everyone else have a hard time
swallowing that, because it's sooo different than what they're used to
thinking. But it's a way better dependency ladder than anything else
I've seen. And it really works for everything, just as a metaphysics
should. It doesn't have to hide behind "well, it's just an analogy", or
"it's just a map", because there's where we usually end up with the
classical level ladder.
Magnus
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
