Re: MD Quality, DQ and SQ

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 18:35:35 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD Looking for the Primary Difference"
  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Quality as a Possibility Field"
  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Longer transcript of ZMM?"

    Ian,

    Scott said to Case (I think)
    "I see the way the MOQ treats DQ and SQ as overly dualistic"
    Somewhere else Scott used phrases like
    "Nest of dualities"
    "LCI involves irony and it's not actually possible to bottom out the LCI"
    "The problem is a Relativist / Absolutist dichotomy"

    A serious observation, I say, any attempt to "treat" anything leads to
    at least one duality - thing and not-thing - and any more analysis
    leads to more. These are all matters of pragmatic choice - ontology.
    As DMB reminds us Pirsig's static / dynamic division of the continuum
    is one suchh choice - MORE fundamental than say S/O divide, but not
    "absolute".

    Scott:
    I would say it goes deeper than pragmatic choice. What I am trying to get
    across is that the undivided and the divided are a contradictory identity.
    The Reality is not the undivided, which we metaphysicians talk about by
    dividing. Rather, Reality is the dividing, or one could say that by
    dividing, realities are created. For this reason, I see the
    divided/undivided dichotomy as absolute, in the sense that there is no
    avoiding it, although it shows up under many names (static/dynamic,
    many/one, time/eternity, potential/actual, etc.). Note that it is the
    dichotomy that is absolute, not the two aspects that have been dichotomized,
    since each aspect is totally dependent on the other, while contradicting the
    other. That is, the undivided is not absolute, the divided is not absolute,
    but their contradictory identity is. As I've said many times, the
    pragmatists' error is identified in the fourth horn of the tetralemma: "one
    cannot say 'experience is neither dynamic nor static'" (or whatever triple
    of words one is considering).

    Ian said:
    For a pragmatist like me (and better read ones like Ant, Paul, DMB,
    etc) this doesn't seem to be a problem. The problem seems really to be
    the idea of striving to find the absolute in a metaphysics. Doomed to
    stumble through a nest of dichotomies, dualities and recursions, no ?
    (But surely Scot't's LCI experience says we should expect that to be
    true of any metaphysics.)

    Scott:
    Not only true of any metaphysics, but the Truth of the One, True
    Metaphysics, that is, not only are metaphysicians doomed to so stumble, so
    is Reality. Or that is how it seems to me at the moment (acknowledging irony
    here).

    - Scott

    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 Nov 28 2005 - 22:10:16 GMT