Hello everyone On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2013 12:55 PM, "Carrie Cisneros" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> hi, >> I joined recently, and have been merely lurking but this stung me out >> of > my >> seat... >> >> > >> > Dan: >> > Well, I suppose you could say that, thought you seem to be saying >> > biological patterns are primary when you say we experience them. >> > Again, in the MOQ, experience comes first. Static quality patterns >> > like rationality and irrationality emerge from experience. They are >> > not pre-existing notions. >> > > >> >> Dan, how is biological patterns different than plain old nature, and are > we >> so sure that there is no intellect or art in nature, and social patterning >> for goshsakes, so that it can be called just biological? > > Hi Carrie > > I am not exactly sure what you're asking here. The point I was attempting > to make is that in the MOQ, experience comes first. In scientific realism, > matter comes first. When someone says something like this: > > [Krimel] > Biological patterns are experienced irrationally. They are unnamed. > > Dan comments: > > They are basically saying biological patterns come first, that they are > 'out there' waiting for us to experience them. Do you see my point? > > [Krimel] > Well no. What are you saying. I said nothing about priority or any such > thing in what I wrote. Dan: Yes you did. Using the term 'experience' in that manner indicates there are patterns waiting to be experienced. But according to the MOQ, experience is primary while patterns are secondary. They arise from experience. I explained this in a prior email to you but reading your reply it seemed pretty obvious I was wasting my time. > [Krimel] > Any sort of patterning is experienced irrationally > but only becomes objectionable in the MoQ sense when named. I thought that > was clear in what I said. It seems that you are making a big deal out of the > naming problem which is part of what I have been trying to address here of > late. Dan: Well, what you seem to be addressing has little to do with the MOQ, so far as I can see. You seem to be equating irrationality with Dynamic Quality (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). This "naming problem" doesn't exist if we adhere to the tenets of the MOQ. It appears to me that you have no inclination to do so, however, which is a bit strange considering this is a forum dedicated to it. Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
