From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:31:38 BST
Scott
[Scott:]
The problem is that there is no way to talk about the intellect without
talking about an X/Y divide, traditionally called the S/O divide. But we
can't use "object" for "Y" and since subject in the #5 sense is also
verboten, what do we use instead? Well, in the MOQ one can refer to
static
patterns of value, so we have at least X/SPoV. Now what goes into "X"?
[Paul:]
More SPoV. All of the experience you are referring to, that SOM
identifies as subject experiencing object is subsumed as static patterns
of value created by Dynamic Quality.
[Scott:]
In the MOQ, the only thing that is not SPoV is DQ, but that is not what
is
traditionally thought of as the "subject".
[Paul:]
No, because "subject" is also static patterns of value. You have
converted experience into an object and you're looking for somewhere to
locate the subject. This is the trouble with subject-object metaphysics.
[Scott:]
So how do I talk about thinking, perceiving, feeling, understanding,
willing, etc. in general terms, that is, philosophically?
[Paul:]
In terms of static-Dynamic experience.
[Scott quoted dmb:]
> I mean, I still don't know why
> we would need anything more than intellect to understand the MOQ.
[Scott:]
"I understand the MOQ [or don't understand]". That's a case of the S/O
divide, in the #2 or #5 sense. Me on one side, the MOQ on the other.
[Paul:]
"I" is a figure of speech, it is how our language is constructed,
subject-verb-object. This doesn't mean that we have to grant language a
metaphysically accurate status.
The MOQ would probably say that the most "real" part of what is going on
in "I understand the MOQ" is captured in the "understand" part. The
subject [I] and object [the MOQ] of the sentence are derived from an
experience described as "understanding" which is reducible to an
assertion of value, the value of seeing harmony in an intellectual
pattern. The "I" and "the MOQ" are then both described as intellectual
patterns created by the experience, there is no separate "I" or "MOQ"
that created the experience by "coming together".
[Scott:]
The MOQ is not an object (def. #1), so this statement is impossible,
according to the MOQ.
[Paul:]
The statement is simply stated as it is. If you then go ahead and work
out a metaphysical explanation of "what just happened" then, as above,
you have to untangle the sentence which is constructed in a
subject-verb-object way and work out how value has created the
experience which the sentence describes. If you wish to do so. It's
certainly easier to believe the SOM version which is implicit in our
language and write the MOQ off as a bit screwy.
[Scott:]
The same applies to all his examples, like mathematics. If I think about
a
statement about triangles, and want to prove it, I (subject) treat the
concepts triangle, line, etc. as objects (sense #2).
[Paul:]
That is a perfect subject-object metaphysics statement, taking the
English language as metaphysics in itself. Think of it another way, a
math problem is solving itself by creating ideas in a pattern of values
called "Scott" that thinks it is solving the problem! Sounds crazy, I
know, but it's amazing how many musicians and artists describe how a
masterpiece "created itself".
Cheers
Paul
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 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:34:13 BST