Hi Bo
>> First you say I misunderstood, but now you seem to confirm my
>> statement that science is your only view to reality.
>
> How the h... can you utter this nonsense? Listen. The MOQ (in
> my opinion) makes SOM and its sciences its own intellectual
> level and by this metaphysical inside-out turn the MOQ pulls the
> rug from under the old order where physics - not metaphysics -
> represented reality.
Yes, so you keep saying. But as I've tried to explain numerous times now, doing
that doesn't add any value to the MoQ. And every time you use that SOLAQI view
to explain something, your words gets garbled on their way through SOLAQI and
just gets confusing for us, and it's *not* because you're in MoQ heaven and
we're in SOM valley.
> Do you understand? SOM's advantage was that of no-one
> knowing any SOM, they believed that it's premises were
> fundamental and that physics examined reality itself. Phaedrus'
> enormous feat was to expose the SOM and if Pirsig had followed
> up and made SOM the MOQ's 4th. level the MOQ could have
> thrown in its full weight, but Pirsig played straight into SOM's
> hand and now the MOQ is impotent.
No, Pirsig exchanged SOM with the whole MoQ, not just the intellectual level.
SOM is a metaphysics, right? (Subject/Object Metaphysics)
MoQ is a metaphysics, right? (Metaphysics of Quality)
So if you take away one metaphysics, you must use another instead. You can't
just include the old one inside the new, then you'd get a meta-metaphysics. And
you can't compare a metaphysics with Newton's laws or GR, they are *not*
metaphysicses. As long as we don't agree on this, there's not much point
discussing much else either. We just keep misunderstanding each other.
BTW, I've come up with a new metaphor for metaphysics that I think works better
than the map-reality. If physics is a map of reality, then metaphysics is the
legend of that map, i.e. a description of the various elements that are used on
the map to describe reality.
>> When you say that "substance" is of the 4th level, do you mean that
>> the stone outside my window is intellectual patterns??? Because that's
>> how it comes through to me. I can of course agree that the *idea* of a
>> substance based reality is an intellectual pattern, but you seem to
>> (as usual) mix up the map and the reality.
>
> When examined by a scientist, be it a geologist or a physicist or
> whoever, the stone is substance and a lot of useful information
> can be gleaned from this approach, it has given us modernity and
> I am not willing to drop that. However, when "examined" by the
> MOQ it is inorganic value and as we know much more can be
> gained from that. This has nothing to do with ideas in contrast to
> reality or confusing maps and terrain or any other any somish
> mumbo-jumbo.
We seem to agree here, but I still sense SOLAQI in "it has given us modernity"
and such. And since I know you still think it's identical with the 4th level,
such statements bothers me pretty much. The intellectual level is *soooo* much
more than just that! Or to use metaphor:
SOM is just a grain of sand on the beach of the intellectual level.
>> Another thing, first you say that a MoQ-look at physics is
>> superfluous. Then you say the quantum weirdness made the physical
>> world disappear into subjectivism, but was then saved by the MoQ. That
>> isn't superfluous in my book??
>
> I mean that a Q-version of the various scientific disciplines will
> only mess up their work. A physicist may well be a moqist, but in
> his work he will act the subject examining objects. If he is a
> particle physicist and he encounters quantum phenomena this will
> not cause articles in "Science American" about how reality fails to
> meet the substance criteria. Reality to him is no longer SOM but
> the MOQ and in it the inorganic level isn't (all of) reality: The
> DQ/SQ configuration is.
Hmm, I'm actually getting more and more convinced that quantum physicists would
gain pretty much by a closer look at the MoQ, specifically by regarding quantum
physics as a new level beneath the inorganic.
>> Would you mind listing a few inorganic patterns you recognize? You
>> don't seem to recognize that there *is* a first level?
>
> I DO recognize the static inorganic value as the first level, and
> everything you deem inorganic value I do too.
I wonder...
Mass, gravity, electromagnetism, space, time, speed, energy.
Magnus
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
