From: john66@attbi.com
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 18:38:01 GMT
Regarding Subjects and objects, isn't the subject always "me", and everything
else always an object? So "subjects and objects" doesn't make sense to me, it
shouldn't be plural.
>I don't even know how to think without binaries
Have you heard of the It From Bit theories of John Archibald Wheeler? He says
that everything in the universe is the result of a participant asking binary
yes or no questions. Without someone to ask the questions and observe the
answers, there would be no universe. The universe is informational and
participatory.
Relating it to MOQ, I would say that the answers to these binary questions come
from observing patterns of information, and we can be satisfied with the answer
that the pattern suggests should be the answer, or dig deeper into the inner
patterns. We can ask "is that a tiger?" and be satisfied that "yes, it
certainly is the pattern of a tiger, therefore it is a tiger" (pragmatism) or
keep asking questions about what the inner patterns or outer patterns are until
it eats us.
> Matt,
>
> Matt S. said:
> Such reference to 'magnets' etc
> is surely born in SOM thought, in the fallacy of
> substance. Even use of the word 'thing' is a bit too
> SOM for me. All there is is patterns.
>
> Matt:
> I understand your intention, and it is a seeming desirous one, but I happen
> to think it goes down a dead-end street. The problem is, I make a
> distinction between Subject-Object Metaphysics and subject-object thinking
> (binary thinking). Pace Platt (as of our last discussion of it), I don't
> think regular old binary thinking falls into SOM. I don't even know how to
> think without binaries (Platt and I do agree on this). It's only when we
> hypostatize the binaries, as in "There are only subjects and objects. If
> it's a subject, it's not an object. If it's an object, it's not a
> subject." In SOM, subjects and objects are permanent, metaphysical
> categories. In the MoQ, they are just helpful ways of distinguishing that
> can be dispensed with as soon as the prove unhelpful.
>
> If we do dispense with all binary thinking, and we can't distinguish
> between (using an old example) a tiger-pattern and a me-pattern, then I
> think we are stuck with just one big pattern called "the Universe." This
> isn't very helpful, though, when getting around the universe. Without
> being able to make a distinction between the tiger-pattern and the
> surrounding pattern it fits into, I'm guessing the me-pattern won't last
> very long. The trick is, after you've made the distinction between the
> tiger-pattern and me-pattern, to not hypostatize it by saying, "Tigers and
> humans are eternally seperate. Since they are trying to kill me, let's
> kill all of them." When thinking that patterns go all the way down, we
> won't want to hold onto the distinction between tiger-pattern and
> me-pattern. We'll start thinking about the ecosystem, that large pattern
> where we fit in with the tiger in some sort of harmony.
>
> 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
>
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 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 18:38:39 GMT