From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Sep 18 2005 - 08:15:16 BST
Hi Platt
16 Sep. you wrote:
> Best definition of an axiom I've found is simply: "An axiom is a
> concept that has to accepted and used in the process of denying it."
> Thus, "existence is value" is an axiom because both the concepts of
> value and existence have to be accepted and used in the process of
> saying the statement is wrong.
I who talk a lot about dictionaries forgot to check on "axiom". Its
necessity "in the process of denying it" was interesting and your
applying it to Value is valid as far as I can tell.
> Bo
> > I haven't followed this thread, but IMO objections to idealism can
> > only be answered if we point to MOQ having rejected the SOM and its
> > S/O - in this case idealism/materialism - and relegated it the role
> > of its own intellectual level.
> > Consequently, in the MOQ "someone experiencing " does not
> > mean that experience is in someone's mind (in contrast to "out
> > there", rather that humankind are of the two uppermost levels where
> > language is a social pattern and idealism/materialism is a variant
> > of intellect's S/O patterns.
> > About quantum physics. It demonstrates that SOM's "objectivity"
> > isn't what it used to be, but beating the s... out of objectivity
> > has been going on for a long time now. Maybe it had a case in the
> > fifties when Phaedrus faced the S/O dilemma and deemed the objective
> > "horn" the mean one, but since then NewAge books have filled the
> > bookstores. My opinion is that if objectivity is gone so is
> > subjectivity, the said observer is not a mind creating particles,
> > but intellect's failure to explain the outcome through its S/O mesh.
> Excellent. You've answered once and for all the materialist/idealist
> argument by showing that it's a hangover from the S/O split. That
> duality, while certainly still useful in many respects, has seen
> better days. Not only did the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle state
> mathematically that ultimate reality can never be known using S/O
> metaphysics, but Whitehead put the final nail in the S/O coffin when
> he wrote:
I can't but dwell a little more on this. Yes all S/Os have their
origin in SOM. "Useful" - definitely - but this sounds as if we
might do without them. OK, if we talk metaphysics we definitely
can and will do without the SOM, but S/O as a static value we
must retain which is why I harp on ZMM's original thesis of
intellect the S/O "prism", which in the MOQ means the value of
the S/O divide.
I need not tell YOU all this, but I hope that you see that to rid the
MOQ of accusations of subjectivism, idealism ...etc. the
subject/object divide must find its place inside the MOQ - as a
static LEVEL - the whole of it - and that only intellect fits. To say
that SOM is some bad intellectual pattern to be replaced by the
MOQ won't do. If so intellect becomes the realm of ideas or
theories and what is not ideas? About this I am pretty confident.
> "The progress of science has now reached a turning point. The stable
> foundations of physics have broken up . . . The old foundations of
> scientific thought are becoming unintelligible. Time, space, matter,
> material, ether, electricity, mechanism, organism, configuration,
> structure, pattern, function, all require reinterpretation."
Yes the SOM foundation has broken up, but science as an
intellectual pursuit on Quality foundations will surely go on, no
instruments will change settings ...etc. I also honestly think that
the said Quality versions: Q-physics , Q-economy aren't
necessary, science will do fine after shifting to new metaphysical
foundations.
Bo.
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 : Sun Sep 18 2005 - 08:20:41 BST