Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [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?
>From Pirsig who was first to identify SOM.
[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.
Because I don't know what you mean by philosophy is the minds-eye of science.
> 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.
Science rejects thought? That's a new on on me. I wonder how many scientists
would agree.
> [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?
God doesn't try. God knows.
> [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?
Inorganic vs. biological levels.
> 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.
I know what polar opposites mean. I don't know what "perspectives
not exclusives" means. Perhaps you can explain.
[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.
MOQ is opposed to the SOM mindset of science.
> [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.
Pirsig spent the majority of an entire book explaining the MOQ.
Sometimes I wonder if you read Lila.
> [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!!!
Unexplainable? Didn't you read Lila? DQ, "the source of all things, the moral
force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni." Doesn't that sound like an
explanation to you? It does to me. At lot more than "It emerged."
Always enjoy our conversations. Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/
