[SA previously]
> > MoQ is not science Platt. SOM is not
science, either, Platt.
[Platt]
> Beg to differ. SOM is science's mindset, or to use
> the more fancy word, "paradigm"
Where do you find this information? I learned
mine in the university by people who study science
called philosophers, and they openly discuss what
science is and how they say what science is, they call
logical positivism. Where did you learn what you say
above?
[SA previously]
> > Philosophy is the minds-eye in science.
[Platt]
> Don't know what that means.
Then how did you "...beg to differ..." if you
don't know what I mean here. Science doesn't think.
Science rejects thought, at least it tries to, but
philosophers notice that science does have a certain
way of thinking and this thinking was called natural
philosophy and became science when this natural
philosophy of Aristotle began to experiment.
[SA previously]
> > So, use the MOQ to enlighten science.
[Platt]
> I try. God knows science could use some
enlightenment.
Who's this God that tries?
[SA previously]
> > Notice how emergence rids polar opposites found in
> > Ron's quotes.
[Platt]
> Don't know what that means.
I quote from what Ron quoted as follows:
Arthur Koestler stated, "it is the
synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the
very cause of the evolution of complexity in nature"
and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the
two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or
reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not
exclusives, and should work together to address the
issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969)
polar opposites noted above in the quote as
follows:
strong vs. weak
holistic vs. reductionistic
"...should be treated as perspectives, not
exclusives..." S/O is exclusivity. Subject here, and
Object there, and they are to be separated, in other
words, exclusive, and that's what SOM says. MoQ uses
values, notices perspectives, and would have subject
and object working together, which the above quote
asked for, "...should work together..." So, Koestler
is stating rid SOM and find another philosophy. The
philosophy he describes to replace SOM is also a
philosophy Pirsig wrote about.
[Platt]
> There are plenty of polar opposites in the MOQ, like
death vs. life.
I thought you didn't know what I meant, and here
you mention polar opposites. Hmmm... Where does the
MOQ mention death vs. life? The versus is significant
here in your sentence here. Also, what is significant
is your use of versus in the context of death and
life.
[SA previously]
> So, emergence won't talk about dynamic quality or
even static
> patterns, unless, emergence starts to use a
different language.
[Platt]
> Or a different mindset.
The quote Ron gave clearly asks for another way to
explain its' way, as I requoted above. The mindset is
the philosophy. Science uses a different
mindset/philosophy currently, a SOM one. An MoQ
mindset in emergence and science would be helpful.
[SA previously]
> From the quotes Ron gave it seems emergence is
looking for
> another way to talk about what it has found to be.
[Platt]
> What it has found it cannot explain. So it says, "It
emerged."
The MoQ, might I remind you, cannot be explained.
"Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an
adjective or anything else definable..." [Lila; last
chapter: last paragraph]
Sometimes Platt, I wonder if you say these things
just so others can discuss what the MoQ is, and your
just playing devil's advocate but really do know
what's happening.
[Platt]
> That's like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Magic.
"It emerged." Oops. > And the audience goes, "Ahhh."
The organic level is founded upon the inorganic
level created by this undefinable, unexplainable
dynamic quality - ooooops. That's a funny way to be
analogous about dq. hahahahahaha!!!
thanks.
late evening,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
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/
