RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 19 2005 - 16:44:01 BST

  • Next message: Case: "Re: MD Individuals and Collectives"

    Hi Bo,

    Platt previously
    > > 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:

    Bo
    > 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.

    Well put. The MOQ is not an intellectual pattern, S/O or otherwise. It is
    the direct sense of rightness, of value, of morality, of this being
    better than that -- the dynamic warp and woof of reality that weaves the
    patterns of physics, biology, society and intellect which we so readily
    recognize on the static, reflecting curtain of our world.
     
    > > "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.

    Yes, science and technology has done a fine job adopting to quantum
    reality as the plethora of electronic devices demonstrates. Can a quantum
    computer be far away? But in all endeavors, there's no escape from values
    -- probing always the mysteries of the aesthetic continuum behind the
    curtain of static values.

    Best regards,
    Platt
     

    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 : Mon Sep 19 2005 - 16:52:04 BST