[MD] The MOQ Conundrum

[skutvik at online.no]

Platt, Arlo, All 

22 Jan.

Bo before:
> > Why not just:say that static experience arises from dynamic experience?
> > That's the MOQ message. 

Platt: 
> But that begs the question, "What does dynamic experience arise from?" 

Platt, seriously, do you think there are answers to questions like yours 
above, which is related to ones like "what is outside of space", "what 
was before time"?      

> Again we see that when it comes to origins, reason and logic (the
> ideology of SOM critical thought) swallows its own tail. ...

Or was your purpose simply to prove the impotence of SOM? 
However I do not think REASON and LOGIC are identical. Reason is 
truly SOM's "ideology" as you say, but logic is what makes 
intelligence possible and it (intelligence) works for all levels from 
biology upwards. Well, even on the inorganic levels because nothing 
works without 2+2=4.

Jeez, are we once agin invoking another "groundstuff", namely 
LOGIC? A Metaphysics of Logic (MOL) Dynamic/Static logic, 
inorganic logic, biological logic ... etc.?  But as always I think Quality 
is the mother of them all.      

> Something else is going on, as Ant says, "a general progressive
> direction" or "a creative impulse" that is foreign to "blinkered"
> academics "who can't see beyond the creationist/materialist options."  

Well, all static levels are "blinkered", academy (SOM) or the 
intellectual level no exception. As a static level the 4th is the highest 
and best and - dear Platt and dear Anthony - isn't is it about time to 
stop flogging the  S/O split? It is relegate the role of MOQ's 4th. level 
where it has lost its "M" and safely "caged". What's the problem?  

 [Arlo] 
> "Does a dog have a Buddha nature?" Some questions can only be answered
> with "mu". In other words, its a fools game to try to "find" an
> answer. It is trying to formulate a symbolic system devoid of
> self-representation and recursion. Any system powerful enough to
> answer this question will necessarily be open to such infinite
> recursion. 

For once I agree with Arlo, but if it is from the same premises ??
 
Bodvar