Hi David M, it's that constant stream of disrespect, rhetorical attack and misrepresentation of others (straw men, for short) that kills any progress towards understanding and addressing the substantive issues.
As David H points out, even to argue about that is maybe to perpetuate the problem. But, until others are awarded sufficient respect, that what they actually say is the subject of any debate, then I fear the attack-based dialectic is all we can expect. Ian On 9 May 2013 22:29, "David Morey" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi DMB, Ian and all > > "The MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as > composed of material substance and independent of us. It says it is an > extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it is practical > to do so. But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific > view of reality is still an idea. If it were not an idea, then that > 'independent scientific material reality' would not be able to change as > new scientific discoveries come in." [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 4] > > DM replies: Yes, MOQ is compatible with realism, and yes all ideas even > scientific ones are ideas, but agreeing with that does not make MOQ a form > of idealism, hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with this, idealist or not, > I also agree that realism and seeing ideas as ideas should still allow us > to question the metaphysics of SOM and materialism. So my suggestions agree > with the above, no problem. > > > "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which > produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced > Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and > produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that > the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, > Annotation 67] > > > DM replies: So quality, DQ and SQ, come before ideas, both are > pre-conceptual, I agree with that, it is what we find in experience and > allows us to get our ontology and realism going in the MOQ. I am not a > materialist or physicalist, at least not unless you see matter as just a > word for a certain set of patterns and is open to a lot of debate about > what sort of qualities those experienced patterns exhibit. Yes experience > and ideas are primary and when we talk about what these ideas refer to, > such as matter, then we are talking about features of patterns that we have > derived from experience and our ideas about this experience. But there is > also a historical and cosmological and evolutionary story to be told about > our ideas about these experienced patterns and how these patterns clearly > exist independently of us in these stories. Obviously DQ and SQ are our > first ideas in a sense, but we give them ontological status, derived from > our direct experience, referring to what we find in experience when we > first conceptualise our experience, replacing the misguided first concepts > of SOM. > > "It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although > 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually 'common > sense' which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This 'common sense' is > arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various > alternatives. The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality decisions. > The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws > approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that > leads to it." [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 97] > > DM replies: Yes we have to think about how to understand experience before > we can produce ideas about a world and cosmos, experience and ideas come > first, then we get to cosmology and evolution which then refers to times > and places that go beyond what we have directly experienced, in a sense the > MOQ is obvious and simple, and only SOM, confusingly talks as if you can > tell the story of cosmology and evolution without understanding where your > experience and metaphysics is getting started from in the first place. So > no disagreement between what I am saying and any of the above. > > > Ian said to dmb: > (1) DavidM is warning against the rejection of realism BECAUSE you accused > him by name (in a thread not actually involving him) of "arguing in favor > of subjects experiencing objective reality". Simply clarifying that it's > the primacy of subjects and objects we're (ALL) rejecting - NOT reality. > > > dmb says: > Right, I named several people who all seem to be making the same mistake, > which is nothing less than a failure to understand the rejection of SOM. If > you've been following along, then you should know that Arlo and I have both > tried to show that David M is using the MOQ's terms but he's really just > talking about SOM. That's what this realism business is really all about. > As he and many others misconstrue it, "static patterns" are just a new name > for SOM's independent, objective reality. I'm still quite convinced that > this basic first move is where most people fall down. > > DM replies: Utter nonsense, the only real difference DMB seems to stick > with is that he thinks all SQ involves concepts and I say that we > experience SQ without introducing concepts straight away, simply > pre-conceptual SQ. If DMB thinks SQ and patterns are impossible without > concepts he has done nothing to give any good reasons for this view, it > seems to be a dogmatic assertion of his. I suggest shapes and colours are > called pre-conceptual SQ, DMB either thinks that shapes and colours should > be called DQ or that shapes and colours involve concepts. Either way this > is an odd use of the word concepts or fails to see the patterns in shapes > and colours. Shapes and colours DMB are you ever going to discuss how you > understand these? > > > Ian said to dmb: > We're (ALL) arguing for a MoQish REALITY - and thereby rejecting the > dangers of a post-modern, solipsistic, subjective idealism. > > DM replies: Is DMB rejecting postmodern non-realism and solipsism and > subjective idealism? Pleased to hear he is if you think so. DMB can you > confirm your rejection? Doubt it. > > dmb says: > It's not about loyalty or fondness, Ian. It's about comprehension. As far > as the dangers of postmodern, solipsistic, subjective idealism go, like I > just said, "I do not think that, did not say that, and I don't see how that > could follow from anything I said". > > DM replies: Bit vague, do you reject solipsism, non-realism and > anthropocentrism? 3 yes/no answers would be good to see. > > DMB: Those concerns are baseless, are the product of some wild inferences > by David Morey based on his own misunderstanding. > > > DM replies: Please list these 'wild' inferences, or are you just back > tracking as usual? > > DMB: He shows this with his contradictory phrase "pre-conceptual pattens", > > > DM: We see colours without concepts I suggest, how is that a contradiction > please explain, sure it contradicts your dogmatism that all patters and SQ > requires concepts. > I say we see differentiated colours, shapes, smells, sounds, without > concepts, did we not experience any of our differentiated senses prior to > language and concepts? > Do you think we had concepts prior to language? Please clarify if you can > make any sense of your own thoughts? > > DMB: for example. He's attempted to construe static patterns as if they > were pre-existing independent realities# > > DM replies: This endless misrepresentation is either complete > misunderstanding or complete fear that you cannot justify your views. I > suggest we experience pre-conceptual patters/SQ as the very being of our > experience, the only primary being we know, I then suggest that we can have > good ideas and concepts to enable us to understand this > pre-conceptual-experienced (one-word) SQ. One of the many good ideas we can > have is that realism is right, that my mother existed before I was born, > that species existed before human beings, that the cosmos existed before > this planet, that America exists even though I have never been there, that > my cake still exists even when I put it in the cake tin. > > > DMB: which we may or may not then perceive and conceptualize. This mistake > doesn't take the MOQ on board at all. There is no real conceptual shift > away from SOM but just a re-naming the same old objective realities from > SOM. The problematic metaphysical assumptions remain unchanged. > > DMreplies : Apparently if you can't argue against what I am actually > saying you think defeating something you have dreamed up will do! > > dmb says: > What!? You don't see how those quotes are relevant to David Morey's love > of realism and pre-existing realities? > > > DM replies : So you still reject realism, unlike the MOQ or Pirsig, and > you can't understand that the idea of a dinosaur (which we have never > experienced but have reasoned based on fossils) refers to an actual > dinosaur that pre-existed human beings in history? Creationist are you? > Can't make any other sense of your view. Can you explain it? > > DMB: Wow. I think they answer his concerns quite directly and neatly. > > DM replies: No that just support what I am saying. What you are saying is > a sort of half story that keeps going round in circles. So what came first > in time actual dinosaurs or humans? I say humans what do you say? What came > first human beings doing natural history or the idea of dinosaurs? > Obviously we had no idea about dinosaurs prior to doing natural history, > there are not many dinosaurs in the bible. Can you follow this difference > between ideas and actual existence, you seem to want to pretend there is no > distinction, why? What pointless form of non-realism are you trying to > defend. Feel free to back track, it is one of the better ways you have of > responding. > > DMB: Pirsig even tells us that getting this very point, "is important for > an understanding of the MOQ"! > > DM replies: Yes ideas are prior to the actually existing patterns we refer > to and that exist independently of us according to our actual ideas, we can > do all this without introducing the metaphysical theories that invent > subjects and objects, as patterns are quality, patterns exist, experience > is made of patterns and DQ, and these exist. MOQ easily can embrace > realism and can reject S-O metaphysics at the same time, great job done, > DMB can stop suggesting that realism destroys the MOQ, he never really > meant to say such a crazy thing in the first place. Or am I misrepresenting > you? If so, please explain. > > DMB: This is exactly what I'm trying to get DMorey (and you) to see: "that > although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first > (pre-existing objective reality), actually 'common sense' which is a set of > ideas, has to come first." Like I said, it's about comprehension and some > people just don't get it. All three of the quotes make the same point. It's > a good and useful idea in many situations, but don't reify it. Don't forget > that it's just an idea. Don't mistake for the starting point of reality or > the anchor of all truths, or whatever. The idea was, after all, derived > from experience in the first. > > DM replies : Yes culture comes before the patterns/SQ that culture > conceptualises and refers to, but in actual time, as per fossil dating, and > cosmic background radiation, patterns we call suns and planets are older > and therefore existed in the past before human beings existed, in the > context of a very good idea called realism. Any reason why MOQ cannot > embrace realism as a good idea? Not that I can see. What underlies these > patterns that show up in our experience, that we can deduce pre-existed our > experience and even our species existence? We cannot say, all we have are > the patterns we experience, coming and going in an ocean of DQ. What sort > of nature do we have? Are we subjective entities? No why would we think > that, all we are is the experience of SQ and DQ. What sense can we make of > the cosmos that exists beyond our experience and our species existence? > Well we can experience SQ and DQ and amazingly we can make sense of this > wider cosmos in terms of just SQ and DQ and we can do this in realist terms > about the ontological status of SQ and DQ and we do not have to reject > realism when we do this. > > No SOM is required!!!!! > > Over to to you DMB, to drone on about how only your version of the MOQ > truly rejects SOM because only you truly reject SOM by rejecting realism, > and only you really understand the MOQ, and that everyone else can't follow > what you are saying, and therefore the true inexplicable MOQ is doomed to > die because no one can understands it, which is a shame and perhaps maybe > more people should try my realist version because more people than just DMB > can probably understand it... wonder why that is? And I have no desire to > save you by the way, but would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting > my views... And I do not think that I have perfected the MOQ, I simply > offer an alternative to DMB's non-realist, no pre-conceptual SQ version. If > DMB has any good reason for preferring his version to mine I have yet to > hear them. Why is non-realism better than realism? Why does > pre-conceptual-experienced-SQ have to be banned from the MOQ? What status > do experienced shapes and colours have in the MOQ with no pre-conceptual > patterns? I am all ears? If you had some good reasons I would be more than > happy to change my mind, I have no attachment to my views other than that > they make more sense of experience than I can find in your views. You seem > to be defending your views as if you have some sort of emotional attachment > to them, perhaps you can explain why you value these ideas? I value > recognising that dinosaurs existed in history before human beings, you seem > unhappy about this, why? I value accepting shapes and colours as existing > for babies, animals and me prior to concepts being built on these, what > makes you frightened by this idea? I think my cake continues to exist when > it is put back into the cake tin, do you have a fear of dark interiors, or > what is it that is really bothering you? I can see you care about this, but > what are the SOM linked problems that either realism or pre-conceptual SQ > create? I can't see any? If you can actually put up some good arguments for > your views instead of attacking ones I don;t even hold you might actually > convince me. Get real, to coin an appropriate phrase! > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> > http://moq.org/md/archives.**html <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
