From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Jan 24 2004 - 08:48:12 GMT
Paul
22 Jan. you wrote:
> Scott said:
> > By the way, I consider the MOQ to be an S/O theory, since it is
> > *about* morality and human beings and the universe. So I guess I
> > disagree with Paul (since I call it S/O, albeit not SOM), and with
> > Bo (since I consider it as an intellectual product.)
> Bo applauded:
> It's positive that you disagree with Paul. I can only add that the MOQ
> is S/Oish in the sense of being "out of" Intellect (but not
> subordinate to it).
> Paul:
> When you and Scott say "S/O," it seems to me you are talking about
> different things. I think Scott is using S/O in the broad sense of
> "thinking about..." in which the content of thought is the object to
> the thinking subject - this is in contrast to SOM which is a specific
> metaphysical position holding mind or matter to be fundamental
> reality.
I agree about the first, but not regarding Scott's position as
different from SOM. The subject/object master-key has produced
off-shoots ever since its origin with the Greeks. The
idealist/materialist and "mind/matter" ones are recent creations,
the da/dee began with Plato and Aristotle and has had many
strange forms up through the centuries and Scott's "nominalism"
accusation against the MOQ is the Medieval SOM
(nominalist/universalist) so he is as somish as they come.
> I think Bo is talking about the epistemological distinction of
> subjective versus objective where "objective" is seen as a synonym for
> "true."
Right, this is how the SOM is described in ZMM. But for the
umpteenth time ...when seen as intellect's value it is not S/O
Metaphysics, merely the VALUE of the said distinction.
> As such, although you applaud Scott for disagreeing with me, you don't
> appear to agree on why you are disagreeing! Any port in a storm
> though, eh?
I'm reeling from your logic attacks.
Bo
------------------------------------------------------
PS
There were a few points of interest in your Jan.19 post.
> Paul:
> Is there an argument in here somewhere? What on earth is "Q-intellect"?
Q-intellect is mere "the static intellectual level of value" ...like Q-
society ...etc. No mystery
> Paul:
> There are no subjects or objects in mathematics.
You sound more and more like Mark ;-) Will it never penetrate
that the S/O does not mean that intellectual patterns "contains"
subjects and objects", merely that they are of the "search for what
is objectively true" ...etc." ROOT. There are no subjects or
objects in scientific theories but all are based on the said value.
> By the way, despite my request for a clarification some time ago, I
> still find that your use of "SOM" is very vague and it makes your
> arguments very slippery. What exactly do *you* mean by SOM?
The view that the mind/matter divide is the fundamental one (in
contrast to MOQ's DQ/SQ)
Yours
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 Jan 24 2004 - 08:48:53 GMT