-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Jorgensen [mailto:mjorgensen@vpdinc.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:11 PM
To: MOQ
Subject: RE: MD A question
To Elephant and Rog:
We as human beings interpret certain sensations and label those
interpretations as “Quality”. So what? The fact that we give a sensation a
name doesn’t necessarily say anything about the sensation (although in one
sense it does ‘objectify’ it into an object), it only says something about
the way we interpret it. What I am saying is that those interpretations may
be suspect due to the way we think, or the manner in which ‘the activity of
pattern making” comes about.
“ELEPHANT: Firstly, as I remarked in my original post, your argument that we
could conceive of quality without the conceived of Quality existing depends
upon treating Quality as an Object. The waters of the ontological proof are
deep and murky, marty, but this much is clear: Quality isn't an old man in
the sky with a white beard. Nor is it any pattern at all (patterns have
static quality, but are not the same as static quality, and they don't have
dynamic quality at all). Since Quality isn't a pattern or object, it
doesn't have attributes, it is an attribute.”
Sure, Quality is an attribute, but we still have an idea about what it is
when we talk about it. My original point was that just because we have an
idea about something, whether it’s object, subject, sensation or concept,
doesn’t mean that the concept, sensation, et. al., is as we conceive it. My
argument to the ontological proof isn’t that existence isn’t an attribute,
but that conceptions aren’t necessarily reality. The fact that I can’t
conceive of God unless I also conceive of God as existing (since the
“highest being possible” would not be the highest being without existing)
doesn’t say anything about a real God, it only says something about my
conception of Him. My conception of Santa Claus includes a white beard and
a home at the North Pole, but that doesn’t mean there is such a man, only
that I can’t accurately conceive of him without these attributes. The same
goes for Quality, no matter if it’s an object or an attribute.
“ROG:
Pardon me for saying so, Marty, but this seems like a kinda dualistic way to
define things. Our "brains" are other than "of the world? Our state-of-mind
is other than of the world? Our knowledge is other than of the world?”
Rog, I don’t believe that the brain and the world are two different things.
IMO, whatever is going on is not split into different parts at all, but we
confuse ourselves by taking our interpretations of Reality as Reality.
Marty J
P.S. As I am sure you can tell from my simplistic posts, I am not a
professional philosopher, although I had some background in the past. I
bring this up because I am unable (or unwilling?) to devote more time to
this endeavor, although I enjoy reading most of the posts and have learned
quite a bit in the last several weeks. I can't always respond as quickly as
would be polite, so I thank you for your indulgence of my ignorance and my
slowness.
Happy New Year!
marty j
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST