Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Sep 17 2005 - 06:56:46 BST

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "RE: MD Essentialist and anti-essentialist"

    Hello Case, Platt, Bo, et al --

    I get the feeling I'm shooting in the dark here. Everyone seems to be
    holding a private dialog concerning his own pet theory, and there's no
    consolidation of effort.

    I want to thank Case for suggesting the wikipedia for monistic terms which,
    unfortunately, didn't include any that came close to what I'm looking for.
    In its listing of "ancient philosophers", only the description given for
    Neoplatonism makes sense to me. This isn't surprising, since it's the basis
    for most non-materialistic philosophies, including the MoQ. The term
    Plotinus uses for the primary divide (or S/O split) is "emanations", which I
    find inadequate for metaphysical purposes:

    "Neoplatonism is Monistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable
    transcendant God 'The One' of which subsequent realities were emanations.
    From the One emanates the Divine Mind (Nous), the Cosmic Soul (Psyche) and
    the World (Cosmos)."

    Meantime, C.L. and Scott are chatting about the logic of contradictory
    identity, using containers and coins as analogies. Apparently the Klein
    bottle, a four-dimensional shape constructed from a single surface, has no
    inside. (I looked for drawings but could only find two-dimensional
    representations which distinctly revealed both an inside and an outside.)

    I'm also listening to Platt and Bo reach a consensus of two on their
    agreement that Value is the "ground-stuff" of reality, but only "if one
    finds the MoQ of value!" (I thought Quality was supposed to be the
    ground -- or was it Experience? Oh, that's right, they're all the same
    thing!)

    I don't know who started all this, and what it has to do with "the
    intelligence fallacy", but are we learning anything from it?

    Before Jos left, Reinier and I were working on a hypothesis to explain the
    primary source in Cusan logic, which caught his interest. Realizing that
    most of you don't think we need a primary source, what with the Quality
    theory and all, dare I ask the obvious? Is anyone out there interested in
    following this up, or should I consider this phoenix aborted before having
    had a chance to fly?

    Should anyone want to resume that discussion, the basic ideas and the
    thoughts that led to them are spelled out in my note to Reinier of 9/13 and
    reach their peak in a response to Jos on 9/14, both under the
    "Consciousness/MOQ" heading.

    Sorry to intrude, and thanks,
    Ham

    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 : Sat Sep 17 2005 - 06:57:53 BST