[MD] The MOQ Conundrum

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Bo,


On 23 Jan 2010 at 19:44, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> 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"?      

Platt:
Sure there are answers to such questions as many physicists and 
cosmologists will attest, like curved space (Einstein) and multiple space 
dimensions (M-theory). The nature of time has aroused equal amounts of 
speculation. If there's one message from the MOQ it's, "Let us not limit 
ourselves to static, conventional wisdom by avoiding tough questions."    

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

Bo: 
> Or was your purpose simply to prove the impotence of SOM? 

Platt:
Not its impotence, its limitations. 

Bo:
> 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.

Platt:
Which begs the question, "Why is the language of mathematics 
appropriate to formulations of nature's laws?" Suggests "intelligence" at 
work from the beginning don't you think? 

Bo:
> 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.      

Platt:
Agree. 

Platt:
> > 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."  

Bo: 
> 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?  

Platt:
The problem is that SOM is still at large among the habitats of  the 
"intelligentsia." 

>  [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. 

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

Platt  
Who knows what Arlo's premises are? All we know is that whatever they 
are, they are faith-based. 

Best regards,
Platt