From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 28 2005 - 11:33:57 BST
Scott, David,
(Sorry for the delay been keeping my head down in day job / domestic
matters recently.)
Interesting response Scott. I still believe our differences remain
linguistic. Too much talk about "perception" for example ? It's just a
word - lets use "quality event" or just "experiencing" instead.
Anyway, moving on ...
Scott, very importantly ...
Whatever the nature of the distinction (and whatever word we use for
it) between the "out there" and the quality of value patterns, etc,
we both seem to agree that
(a) the "out there" exists.
(b) you don't know if it has any structures ontology relevant to our
MoQ definitions, and specifically deny that it has an "pre-exiting
spatio-temporal objects".
(c) I agree.
And go so far to say that I don't actually care one iota about the
"pre-perceptual" out there; Any and all pragmatic ontologies exist
within the post-perceptual and post-conceptual MoQ. We CAN NEVER KNOW
the ontologies (spatio-temporal or otherwise) of any "out there" - so
it is perfectly sufficient simply to accept that it probably exists
and that its ontolgies probably bear some relation to our "internal"
MoQ views, the precise nature of which is completely irrelevant to the
history of the world for all time (physics included.)
I've been blogging on idealism / materialism / duaslism recently.
Ian
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 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 11:48:56 BST