From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 14:46:09 BST
Ham, Matt,
>But Paul also talks about space and time as "intellectual patterns"
>existing at the inorganic level. Doesn't this imply that intellect is a
>primal form
>of consciousness that pervades the universe and is drawn upon by the
>individual to become cognizant of physical reality?
Paul: I talked about space and time being intellectual patterns used to
cope with, predict, and control behaviour of inorganic patterns, not about
the existence of an inorganic proto-intellect. I'm trying to keep the MOQ
antirepresentational which means that whilst intellectual patterns may be
about the inorganic level it is not presumed that such things as space and
time are *really there* nor is it presumed that they are *really not there*.
Both of these philosophical positions are the result of representationalist
assumptions. Instead of making these assumptions, it is just presumed that
space and time are high quality patterns that help one cope with the
inorganic environment.
Now, this antirepresentationalism is not something Pirsig goes into but I
see it as a natural conclusion of the MOQ's rejection of the correspondence
theory of truth and its adoption of a pragmatic conception i.e. truth is a
property of intellectual quality. I haven't worked it all through yet
though and I could do with some help.
>On 7/17 (Materialism and DQ) Paul said:
>
>> In the MOQ, space and time are high quality intellectual patterns
>> postulated to exist at the inorganic level in order to successfully
>> predict and calculate the behaviour of inorganic patterns but
>> it is proposed that the value that produces and maintains both
>> inorganic and intellectual patterns is not dependent on the
>> prior existence of a spatio-temporal universe.
>
>Now perhaps my imagination is playing tricks on me, but does this not
>suggest that the patterned "universal intellect", of which time and space
>are cited as examples, is the MOQ's own "collective consciousness"?
Paul: Well, hopefully, you will see that I'm not talking about a universal
intellect. As such, Matt's explanation of a "collective consciousness"
still stands as a clear statement of my understanding of the term and as the
limit, as I see it, of its use in the MOQ.
I'll have a read of Kaufman.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 15:00:29 BST