To Bo: Hear Here!
(pzeph)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:09:13 +0100
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: MD EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
> Chris Lofting wrote:
>
>> I think the emphasis from my perspective is that MOQ and the S/D
>> emphasis stems from the neurological emphasis on
>> objects/relationships.
>
> Hi Chris and All Discuss.
> Is S/D equal to S/O (subject/object) or is it some other acronym
> that has gone me by? You say: "...MOQ and the S/O emphasis
> stems from the neurological ...etc". Do you mean that the Quality
> Metaphysics emphasizes the subject/object relationship because
> only in it is the S/O identified as a world view ?
>
> If so you have a deep insight, but am afraid that you simply mean
> that biology (when it reaches the "thinking" level) is bound to
> perceive reality as subjective/objective because of a neurological
> hard-wiring (a ROM so to speak) ...and that this basic S/O by
> twists and turns even has spawned the dynamic/static division.
>
> If so, isn't that just another way of saying that a belief or a theory,
> how deep and all-encompassing, is just a by-product of some more
> basic conditions, and thus that you belong to the materialist
> camp? But wait, this isn't so bad in my book, I like it bit better than
> the dualist view: that mind and matter are worlds apart "and that
> the twain shall never meet". But really the MOQ conforms to
> neither.
>
> If I stretch myself to the limit to meet you. In my opinion the QM
> (sort of) supports this view although from a different angle because
> in it the Inorganic value level (matter) puts some restrictions on the
> rest of the static sequence, but the Q-idea is that the next level
> transforms the restrictions (it inherited from the parent level) into its
> own purpose. Yet the lower values follows like the floors of a
> building, so even Intellect is is inorganic-biological-social
> dependant.
>
> Your point that the biological hard-wiring bleeds trough in a
> "thinking context" (which I believe is your concession to the
> Intellectual level?) may be valid, but I fear that you harbour the
> common notion of mind-out-of-matter (matter in bio-neurological
> form of course) and that the Social level - the Q-levels generally - is
> of no consequence.
>
> I don't go further, but hope to open some dialogue with you about
> these basic premises.
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
