Thanks, Mark!
10.9.2011 20:24, 118 kirjoitti:
Hi T.
I will give this a shot.
MoQ provides the analogy of dividing our reality into different
apparitions of Quality. The intellectual is one of these. Within the
framework of discussion (which is social quality), MoQ is a form of
intellectual quality. With set theory such as this, there is always a
contradiction. While MoQ is a social quality interaction of an
intellectual quality, it also encompasses itself. This would be
similar to the concept of "the set of all sets". This described set,
would also include itself, which does not work through standard set
logic. This has been resolved (mathematically) by some intelligent
creators of math theory. So, it could be said that MoQ is
intellectual quality and more.
T:
So MOQ is the set of all sets. Is intellect also the set of all sets? If
yes, we have a contradiction, because intellect is static quality, but
would also contain Dynamic Quality. If no, there's no contradiction.
118:
So, while MoQ is the social presentation of intellectual quality, it
is also more than that. This kind of contradiction is normal in this
group theory type of analysis, and should not be used as any kind of
proof that the metaphysics is faulty, for there are many ways around
this.
We as individuals 'know" what social quality is, and we do not need
social interaction to tell us this. Once we enter into the social
level of quality (as we do through these posts), we cannot turn around
and define what we are creating. This would be like a finger pointing
to itself. Common intellectual logic falls apart at this point. It
would be like each of us trying to "see" ourselves. It cannot be done
since the eye cannot see itself. This has, of course, resulted in a
false logical premise of Buddhism that the self does not exist. If I
do not know anything else, I know I exist, no matter what kind of
logic is thrown at me to the contrary.
In my book, defining and describing are pretty much the same thing.
Nothing can be fully defined by language, for there are not enough
words. Think of all the ways you could define a house. We stick to
simple definitions so that the social level of quality can function.
With that in mind, I could say that social quality is the expression
of a group which is distinct from the expression of the self.
Something more than the self arrises at that level. One example would
be words and language. If there was no other person, we would not
need language. By describing social quality through language, we
create static quality. This is important since static quality must be
created to exist. So I would reverse your statement below to say
"social quality can be described and becomes through that a form of
static quality".
T:
If I say: "X is defined" I mean that the intension of X is known. If I
say: "X is described" I mean the extension of X is known. Further
explanation can be found here:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intension_and_Extension
118:
In terms of how we describe Intellectual Quality, there are many
options. It is an artificial division of Quality for the purposes of
rhetoric. I have no problem agreeing on some mutual description of
intellectual quality, but I am afraid that there are too many
renegades in this forum to make such a thing useful. We could make
the set of intellectual quality encompassing of parts of all levels
and see where this takes us intellectually. There is no reason not to
try this. The Devil is in the details.
Hope this helps,
Mark
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
