RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed.

From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Jan 26 2004 - 13:49:46 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD (no subject)"

    Bo, Mati

    > Mati said:
    > This statement is based on a sensibility that does not require faith
    > but rather the capacity to see SOM and how it works.
     
    > Paul:
    > I'm not sure what faith has to do with it, but if by SOM you mean the
    > belief that reality is reducible to either matter or to mind or to
    > some combination of the two, then I think I have the capacity to see
    > SOM and how it works.

    Bo said:
    S/O as a metaphysics does NOT work

    Paul:
    ??? Ok, thanks for that Bo. I was just repeating Mati's phrasing, read
    the post again.

    > Paul previously said:
    > Agreed. The MOQ retains and resolves the S/O divide as the distinction

    > between inorganic-biological patterns and social-intellectual
    > patterns.

    Bo said:
    This way of integrating the S/O works up to the point of objects and
    subjects, but in subjectivity/objectivity combinations it fails.

    Paul:
    It doesn't fail, but it does cock up your interpretation.

    Paul quoted Pirsig:
    > "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between
    > intellect and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by
    > embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding.

    Bo said:
    Yes, it is supposed to do this but the said way of tucking SOM in under
    itself does not work very well, while the SOL-intellect does.

    Paul:
    Bo delivers another knock-down argument.

    Paul quoted Pirsig:
    > Objects are
    > inorganic and biological values; subjects are social and intellectual
    > values. They are not two mysterious universes that go floating around
    > in some subject-object dream that allows them no real contact with one

    > another.

    Bo said:
    Are biological value OBJECTS?

    Paul:
    It's better to say that objects are inorganic and/or biological patterns
    of value.

    Bo said:
    And social value SUBJECTS?

    Paul:
    It's better to say that subjects are social and/or intellectual patterns
    of value.

    Bo said:
    Maybe one may say objective and subjective, but then MOQ's static
    hierarchy itself is S/O-divided.

    Paul:
    Correct. They are different levels of static quality.

    Bo said:
    But of course this is the resistance against the SOL - you can't drop
    the SOMMMMM!

    Paul:
    Of course (???)

    > Paul previously:
    > Or it was the new capacity of intellect, the capacity for abstract
    > thought, which enabled man to see himself as never before. I argue
    > that it was not that SOM enabled intellect but that it was intellect
    > that enabled SOM.

    Bo said:
    "New capacity for abstract thought" and "..see himself as never before".
    Right but that is to postulate a subject different from the objective
    ..what he thinks about. It need not be objective in the "stone and
    table" sense (people of old knew the difference between self and other,
    animals too for that matter) At first it was the search for "immortal
    principles" for "what was imperishable ...etc." but the S/O developed
    and as SOM. But there was no "intellect" that developed into this
    ...lest we end up in this impossible "thinking" mire. it's is the
    intellectual value level itself.

    Paul:
    What is the "impossible thinking mire"?

    > Paul previously said:
    > Agreed. The intellectual structure of the MOQ incorporates the reality

    > of value which does not fit into the category of subject or object. In

    > the MOQ subject and object fit into the category of value.

    Bo said:
    "MOQ's intellectual structure"!? The whole MOQ incorporates the reality
    of value. It IS a value structure.

    Paul:
    Yes. The "whole MOQ" is a static intellectual pattern of values.

    Bo said:
    This nonsense about intellect as ideas about the world where everything
    has its origin in a somish to the core and plays straight into the Matt
    Rorty hands.

    Paul:
    The MOQ says that everything has its origin in value, including ideas.
    When have I ever said that intellect/ideas are the origin of everything?

    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 : Mon Jan 26 2004 - 14:35:11 GMT