Re: MD intellectual level

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:41:32 GMT

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Measuring values"

    The intellectual level in the MoQ has evolved a repertoire of static quality
    intellectual patterns.

    The sum total of the repertoire is evolving in an event stream, or DQ.

    The evolution of the static repertoire is towards greater coherence with DQ.

    The important point to note is this view is not a Substance metaphysics.
    It is a Process metaphysics.

    There can be no Subjects or Objects in a process metaphysics, which
    correspond exactly to Subjects and Objects as described in a Substance metaphysics,
    because all processes merge and evolve simultaneously in the event stream.

    Differentiation's in language are convenient inventions of the intellect, and
    Substance is one such invention of the intellect which has solidified
    differentiation into an unnecessarily and unhelpful aspect of our mythos.

    However, this convention, being an unhelpful and unnecessary invention of the
    intellect, is free to be modified or abandoned for a better invention - and
    that alternative invention already existed before Substance metaphysics,
    continued to be developed since the emergence of Substance metaphysics, and may be
    explored afresh today.

    Thus, we can see inventions of the intellect are there to be chosen on the
    basis of value, and should not be mistaken for intellect itself.

    The SOLAQI idea of Bodvar Skutvik clearly made this fundamental mistake by
    indicating Intellect to be based upon the products of the Intellect itself:
    Substance. The intellectual level here is Substance Logos. Note: Substance Logos
    is an invention of the Intellect.

    Having made the initial misinterpretation, an unnecessary solution is
    proposed: Substance Logos as Intellect is replaced by a new idea, that of Quality
    Monism. The Quality monism is then read backwards into Substance Logos as
    Intellect, and described as the value between subjects and objects.

    In a process metaphysics, Subjects and Objects cannot be maintained; the
    artistic value of experience cannot recognise them, and they are seen to dissolve
    in artistic endeavours such as motorcycle maintenance, sports, reasoning, and
    many other creative activities. Patterns emerging in the stream of experience
    are moral expressions of DQ.

    In a Substance metaphysics, Subjects and Objects are necessarily fundamental
    - all intellectual activity requires them. There is no place for value here,
    so, to state that value is between Subjects and Objects begs the question,
    'Where did Subjects and Objects come from?' Because Subjects and Objects cannot be
    inventions of the Intellect in a Substance metaphysics, they have to be
    social constructions, with the further assumption that social constructions are
    linguistic.

    The conclusion i make is that Bodvar Skutvik has misunderstood a description
    of the intellect's invention of Substance metaphysics in ZMM to be concomitant
    with the emergence of Intellect itself in Human evolution. His
    misunderstanding then utilises concepts such as truth and reason to identify substance as
    essential to intellectual activity.

    But it is important to note that this view is entirely based upon the
    assertion that Substance is not an invention of the intellect. However, as stated
    above: 'Differentiation's in language are convenient inventions of the intellect,
    and Substance is one such invention of the intellect which has solidified
    differentiation into an unnecessarily and unhelpful aspect of our mythos.' That
    truth and reason can defend Substance has been problematic in the history of
    Western philosophy.

    However, if we remember that truth and reason are aesthetic appreciation's of
    intellectual value, and not the aesthetic appreciation of Substance, then
    process metaphysics (SQ-SQ tension) can be rationally evaluated as a better
    alternative to Substance metaphysics and the mistaken SOLAQI idea of Bodvar
    Skutvik.

    I wish to spend 2004 exploring the value of the success of the MoQ, with
    others willing to do the same. And for now, the above is all i have to say
    regarding those with past failures...

    Mark

    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 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:43:04 GMT