Magnus and squad
Magnus Berg wrote:
> > > DIANA MCPARTLIN wrote:
> > > > Suppose you are trying to convince someone of the MoQ. It's quite
> > > > easy to show that there is something like value or art that can't be
> > > > explained rationally. However people usually just dismiss that as
> > > > subjectivity. To demonstrate that value is not subjective you have
> > > > to prove that it exists outside of the subject. And in the som the
> > > > only place that isn't subject-territory is the world of objects,
> > > > specifically matter.
> > >
> > > > If you can prove (in an som context) that DQ exists in both the
> > > > subject and the object then the subject-object metaphysics
> > > > collapses, because in the subject-object metaphysics you cannot have
> > > > a phenomenon that exists in both categories - and the only solution
> > > > to it is to conclude that the categories are wrong.
>
> I think it's impossible to actually disprove a metaphysics, let alone
> prove one. For example, we can from a MoQ perspective claim that DQ
> exists in both subjects and objects, but from a SOM perspective the
> DQ is called free will in subjects and non determinism in objects. DQ
> is not present in the SOM dictionary.
>
> What is needed, and I guess this is what you mean, is to show that
> for example free will and non determinism is the same thing.
> Suggestions anyone?
No it isn't what I mean. I mean that from an *SOM perspective* you can
identify dynamic quality in the subject (art, beauty, intuition) and in
the object (quantum possibility or something like that). As the SOM
doesn't allow something to exist in both categories this proves that the
subject-object split is wrong. It is not a perpetuation of the SOM, it
is an escape from it.
> > Meanwhile, what I'm trying to do with these posts is show the people who
> > think science is everything that they need to pay attention to
> > aesthetics and show the people who think aesthetics is everything that
> > they need to pay attention to science. It's a subject-object split -
> > Einstein vs Magritte - you need to see both sides in order to get over
> > it. I really don't see why it's such a controversial point. I haven't
> > solved the problem, I'm merely pointing out what has to be done.
>
> I agree. My essay begins with "The Metaphysics of Quality originated from
> a wish to join the classical and the romantic world views". And I think
> the Lila Squad is a great place to start.
>
> Maybe this is about to happen anyway. It's mostly a hunch but I've noticed
> that extreme classicists, people pursuing science ad absurdum, often reach
> the end of the line. They realize that objective science can't answer
> everything. Some turn to God, others find other solutions but the MoQ
> should be one alternative.
Yes and because the objectivists have dismissed certain things as
subjective they never give a serious thought to them. There are people
in this group like that and then there are some who seem to think that
objectivity is pointless because it takes you away from dynamic quality.
They are both wrong. We need to unite the classic AND romantic, as you
said.
Diana
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST