[Krimel]
But we do have experiences (plural) and they are not experienced as unique.
DM: Looks good to me, hence we speak of SQ and DQ. The problem with SOM
as I see it is SOM sees everything in terms of SQ and misses the DQ. Another
mistake would be to get so busy in the MOQ opposing SOM that we see
everything
as DQ and forget the SQ. I for one support the balance between SQ and DQ as
two
aspects of unifying Quality. Clearly life and the cosmos is dominated by the
flux
(see the work of the new materialists called Speculative Realists), only SOM
deluded fools think you can reduce everything to some sort of SQ reduction
known
as the basic laws of physics. SQ has levels and is a basic element of all
experience
surely -if anything endured beyond a nanosecond. But thankfully we live in a
cosmos
where some islands of order emerge, where complexity can emerge in small
islands.
Science is getting this even if some people round here are missing it, go
read some David
Deutsch, Iain Mcgilchrist, Stuart Kauffmann and Terrence W Deacon I'd
suggest. Nothing is fully unique,
nothing is entirely the same, open, complex, plural universe, with just
enough openness, regularity
and pattern for life in all its diversity. Now this all ties up nicely with
the MOQ if it keeps
an adequate balance between SQ and DQ, if not it is likely to make itself
redundant,
that seems neither appropriate or necessary to me and would be a shame and a
missed opportunity.
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
