Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ.

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 17:56:35 BST

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony."

    Hi Matt

    This monism, or sometimes non-reductive physicalism,
    contrasts with something key to the MOQ. The MOQ
    prefers to talk about SQ that exists at different levels,
    hence giving equal ontological status to SQ no matter what
    level we place it on with a non-reductive or emergent
    relationship between the levels. So that SQ is related to
    DQ/possibility in a comparable way no matter whether
    SQ is on the particle, molecule, cell, instinct, or cultural
    product level. The retention of physicalism or monism
    seems to contrast with this 'equality' of SQ in the MOQ.
    Although I would be happy to be a monist of a meaningless
    sort, to overcome dualism, but indicating a common source/substance
    that is simply incredibly plastic,closer to Aristotle's idea of matter, i.e.
    that
    which is open to all the possibilities of form.

    Do I contrast this correctly would you say?

    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:39 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ.

    Case,

    You're most telling remark was "Most attempts to retain something that is
    paradigmatically human have been weak." Pragmatists like myself can agree
    with you on that point. They have been weak, but (the pragmatist adds) all
    we need is a weak one. Pragmatists can agree and applaud you when you say
    that consciousness is simply a matter of complexity. Which is why the
    remark that I'm "going soft on you" for saying that language is the
    distinguishing mark of humanity seems strange. I'd rather not say that
    language is a by-product of consciousness, but from the little process of
    redescription we have going it certainly follows. Language becomes a
    by-product of the increasing complexity of consciousness--a complexity that,
    so far really, only humans have attained. The only sense of soft I can see
    is the sense that pragmatists feel perfectly comfortable in making soft
    practical distinctions between stuff, but no hard metaphysical ones. In
    metaphysical terms, pragmatists are monists becaue they refuse to make those
    hard distinctions. But in everyday life, just like everyone else, we make
    the soft ones.

    Matt

    _________________________________________________________________
    Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
    http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

    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

    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 Oct 01 2005 - 18:57:43 BST