Hi all,
Reoccuring words in this forum are 'sq', 'DQ' and 'SOM'. There is a
tendency here to put forward some argument, and then classify it as
belonging to one of these categories, which then is followed simply by a
'.': no further explanation needed.
I read here in some posts that things can be real independently of our
consciousness. That makes me wondering about what SOM means.
The MoQ is not a SOM philosophy. But is it? If biological and inorganic
patterns are real but not conscious, should we not say that these
patterns are objectively real; since they can exist by themselves,
without a consciousness to shine upon them needed? Instead of two words
"subject-object" we have five
"inorganic-organic-biological-social-intellectual" (I believe these are
the levels: I never was good in them)... but no essential difference
between these two perspective; it lies only in the jargon that's being
used.
Here is a question then: Define in a few sentences what YOU mean by
subject-object-metaphysics.
(To try to explain the intuitive simple can be illuminating. It happened
to me just a few days ago when I explained 'reductionism' to my father).
Good luck, and with friendly greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:20 BST