From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 22 2002 - 18:06:44 GMT
DMB:
I just can't see that you are even reading what I'm saying.
Take these quotes from my posts:
"Indeed, there isn't a problem with emergence. Its when the
mythos-over-logos argument continues by saying, "Thus, logos is simply a
continuation of the mythos," that a problem emerges."
"The MoQ can say that logos is emergent from the mythos. That's not
controversial. That was the typical interpretation offered by the Greeks
all the way to the present until people started offering the
mythos-over-logos argument in contrast to the usual interpretation. The
interpretation that the MoQ offers is essentially logos-over-mythos. The
Intellect level is morally superior to the Social level. The
mythos-over-logos interpretation says that neither is morally superior over
the other."
So, once again, I agree with you that there is no problem with saying that
the Intellect is emergent out of the Social. No problem, you're analogy is
great. However, the problem is that that's not all the mythos-over-logos
argument says. It also says that they are continuous, not discrete. The
logos-over-mythos argument that the MoQ uses says there is a discrete break
and uses the mother/baby analogy. The mythos-over-logos argument says
there isn't a discrete break and uses the shrub/tree analogy.
As far as I can see, the two aren't compatible and you really haven't given
me any reason to think otherwise.
Matt
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 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 22 2002 - 18:02:32 GMT