From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 01:31:05 BST
Squonk,
Didn't you see in my second to last post that we AGREE that subjects and objects are not primary? So why are you sending this in reply?
Our disagreement lies in whether one's philosophy needs to nevertheless deal with subjects and objects, and how.
- Scott
[Squonk wrote:]
Scott, i should ask you to consider the following:
But we know from Phaedrus' metaphysics that the harmony Poincare talked about is not subjective. It is the source of subjects and objects and exists in an anterior relationship to them. It is not capricious, it is the force that opposes capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and mathematical thought which destroys capriciousness, and without which no scientific thought can proceed. What brought tears of recognition to my eyes was the discovery that these unfinished edges match perfectly in a kind of harmony that both Phaedrus and Poincare had talked about, to produce a complete structure of thought capable of uniting the separate languages of science and art into one. ZMM. p. 271
Harmony is anterior to subjects and objects.
In the MoQ, there are no subjects and objects and there do not have to be. The anterior harmony is a relationship between static intellectual patterns and DQ, and the selection of what is best is based upon harmonious relationships between experience and DQ.
squonk
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 Aug 20 2003 - 01:45:50 BST