Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 06:51:33 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of"

    Case,

    Scott said:
    > My own view is that all these terms (plus intellect) are ultimately
    > undefinable because, like Quality, they each point to different shades of
    > basic reality. Everything else needs to be defined in terms of them,
    > rather
    > than attempting to define them in other terms.

    [Case replies]
    Scott you are cracking me up. If we strip away the exess verbage we will be
    left with a materialist philosophy rooted in Taoism and Zen?

    Scott:
    That's strange. I figured I'd be accused of idealism, not materialism.
    Anyway, I am not following your criticism here. What are you considering to
    be excess verbiage? Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we can do
    without the terms Platt mentioned. I just don't think we can define them,
    much like set theory in mathematics gets along swimmingly without defining
    what a set is. In mathematics this is done by putting forth axioms that
    place restrictions on how the word 'set' is to be used. Philosophy can't be
    that precise, but I think it works in roughly the same way.

    And I'm all for a philosophy rooted in mysticism, but there are various ways
    that can be done (see my last post in the DEsRIP thread to Mark M with the
    Magliola quote for more on this).

    - Scott

    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 Sep 13 2005 - 06:57:00 BST