From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 08:03:03 BST
Hi Ham
17 Sep. you wrote:
> 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.
Most of us discuss the Metaphysics of Quality, About this we may
have many takes - pet ones surely - but I have the impression
that some discuss their own pet philosophers and their theories.
to .
> 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!)
What I meant by " ..if one finds the MOQ of value" is that people
may have a feeling of "something rotten" without having the
courage, capacity or whatever it was that launched Pirsig on his
Quality quest. I was one who felt so intensely, but believed that
the mind/matter divide was indigenous to existence. I simply had
to find Pirsig's book before seeing his Quality=Reality solution,
but it was only a few pages into before I knew that THIS WAS IT!
I haven't followed the thread about "consciousness" because I
see this as some SOMish leftover - its "angles on pinpoints" -
from people who hasn't understood the first thing about the MOQ.
I believe I once told you that if you see consciousness the
groundstuff, please go ahead and construct a MOC, I don't think
you bothered to answer.
> 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?
It was me who started it because I think too many see MOQ's
intellect as "intelligence", something that is wrong because it is
supposed to be a static level and "intelligence" can hardly be
regarded as static. In my opinion SOM has never been
transcended in many people's MOQ. OK, my target in this regard
isn't you or Scott or whoever, because you have never shown any
interest in 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?
Quality DOES convince me as the primary source, but I see the
Dynamic/Static split as important too, why I said that if you see
consciousness as primary and do the same you have a viable
Metaphysics of Consciousness. I'm not sure who Cus... is, I
faintly recall some Medieval bishop and if so God was his primal
source. And God is Good! Dynamic God/Static God. Inorganic
God ...etc. Perfect!
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 : Tue Sep 20 2005 - 08:08:21 BST