David M. and Foci.

28 Dec. You said: 

Bo prev:
> NOTA BENE!! In the said example above intellects S/O value
> (objectivity-over-subjectivity) is plain to see, so plain that I wonder
> how anyone can avoid seeing it. Just as obvious is emotions as the
> social "expression" and reason as intellect's, and in light of the
> dependency issue one sees emotions' role as what underpins
> reason. Why you consider this aspect of the MOQ as imperfect is
> very strange.

> DM: I agree that SOM, which implies only the distinction, generally
> becomes the value "objectivity-over-subjectivity" but this is not
> true of the great German idealist tradition that is the other way round and
> has a great deal to say about reason and is more the concern of European
> post-modernism than the "objectivity-over-subjectivity" that is really the
> value of modern secular techno-scientific society. 

That the subject/object-METAPHYSICS has 2 - two - components  
an idealist and a materialist one I have harped on since God knows 
when, but the SOM removed of its metaphysical 'M' and given the 
role of MOQ's intellectual level ...means the VALUE of the S/O 
distinction.  Neither the idealist nor the materialist is "right" any 
longer because the rightness is taken over by the MOQ.

> I think that your formual
> intellect=SOM I find very odd when I have been educated mainly in the German idealist
> tradition in the humanities

I see your point perfectly and at the start of my SOL "campaign" - 
when the formula was "intellect=SOM" - it could look as if I had 
overlooked the idealist half, but with the "intellect=the value of the 
S/O distinction" form it aught to be crystal clear.  

> but with dualism turned materialist in the sciences. I
> agrre very much with Pirsig with respect to science, but there is a big tradition in 
> the
> European humanities (also some US pragmatism) that is not based on the
> "objectivity-over-subjectivity" value.

I know, but please David: It's the subject/object dualism (here in 
the idealist/materialist form) that the MOQ says is WRONG ...and 
what it is supposed to replace with its own DQ/SQ dualism.   
Haven't you understood this elementary fact yet? 

> We have been happy in Europe to talk alot ion the humanties about the
> subjective-experiencing-self over the objective-groundless-limited-sciences.

Exactly. ;-)  

Wishing you all a Happy New year
Bo





MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html

Reply via email to