[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Krimel.

7 June:

[Bo] before:
> > > I think it is required because Reality = X, = Tao, = Green Cheese is
> > > good for nothing. However I agree 100% with Reality = Dynamic and
> > > Static Quality. 

[Krimel]
> > That is hardly a response. It doesn't even show the slightest
> > indication that you even understand the nature of the problem. The
> > question was why, not what. But let's start back in kindergarten:
> > why do you think this division or any such division is required? Do
> > you even see the difference between Quality=Reality and
> > "Quality"="Reality"?

I answered your question (why a division was mandatory) with the 
obvious that any "Reality = X" is lame, tame and impotent.

[Bo]:
> > > What gives the MOQ its explanatory power is the point of its highest -
> > > static level being the previous SOM, 

[Krimel]
> > This explains nothing. The Greek distinction between continuous and
> > discontinuous, the metaphysical argument between Heraclitus and
> > Parmenides predates SOM and seems more or less identical to SQ/DQ.
> > But they all along with the giant dung beetle lie confortablly
> > together with the MoQ on the intellectual level

I have yet to find one SOM-induced problem that the  MOQ doesn't 
explain: Try me!    

[Bo] before  
> > > thus there is no theoretical, abstract, conceptual ... whatever in the
> > > MOQ, 

[Krimel]
> > Right the MoQ is theoretical, abstract, conceptual ... and whatever.

Please not these Ande-like inanities!

[Bo] 
> > > It also has a biological level and says that intelligence 
> > > entered with brain, but does not consider itself as an intelligence
> > > (in the mind sense) product. 

[Krimel]
> > This anthropomorphic language of yours is inappropriate and
> > misleading. Levels don't say anything and the MoQ cannot "consider".
> > It is a product of the mind to be considered.

Well if you chose not to discuss the MOQ be my guest, but like Ham 
you have to drop your own hobby-horse to be part of this discussion. 

[Bo]  
> > > Language is the ocean in which we swim so all efforts to introduce
> > > language is futile. 
 
[Krimel]
> > WTF, without language there would be nothing to introduce and not
> > way to introduce it. Try to engage your mind here, Bo.

The point was not skipping language, just that one must not include it 
in any metaphysical scheme. I mean we can talk about a time without 
language, but not like DMB and Co say that language is the static 
destroyer of dynamic unity.  

[Bo] 
> > > All this about each person a subjective island who may or may not
> > > communicate across the waters by language is intellect's (SOM's)
> > > business so I leave it. I admire your intellectual - conventional -
> > > knowledge, but cut it short, we are here to discuss the MOQ 
 
[Krimel]
> > As I pointed out communication of emotion is built in and does not
> > require language. Language is just term we use to apply to
> > communication system that require learning and consensus in order to
> > work. It includes speech, gestures smoke signals, trail markers and
> > smoke signal.

It's communications in the conceptual sense I speak about and what 
we mean with "language". Body language hardly counts even if the 
message is clear.  

[Krimel]
> > It is factually incorrect to say that all early metaphysics was
> > dualistic. Giant dung beetlism wasn't, neither was Taoism isn't,
> > neither is Judiasm, neither is Buddhism, neither were the myriad of
> > cultures who pointed to earth, wind, fire and water.

I don't know the "Giant Dung Beetleism", but I guess the Beetle 
created the world of its adhereres and as you demonstrate Taoism 
was not of any use until the Yang/Yin development. Judaism is Javeh 
and His World (and his chosen people)and Buddhism declares all 
existence has Buddha nature but have different appearances.   

Krimel continued:
> > Ancient and
> > tribal people were far more creative in there metaphysical story
> > telling than you imagine. How foolish are you to say that  Pharaoh
> > Akhnaten, the world's first monotheist, had no reality, no sense of
> > his own existence, no experience or no metaphysics. That is shear
> > speculation at best and just plain ignorant at worst. I give you a
> > shaky edge toward the former for the moment but the ice is very
> > thin.

I have not sleighed any gods I just say that all ordering of existence is 
dualistic is some form or other.   

[Bo]
> > > I had high hopes for you Krimel but you too proved to a be a dud. A
> > > moq dud that is, plenty smart otherwise. 
 
[Krimel]
> > Uh, thanks I guess but I have to say that so far my original
> > assessment of the  nature of SOL's unassailability stands. 

Like the Cardinals you just refuse to look through the MOQ  
"telescope" much less adjust it to SOL sharpness, and who am I to 
force you?   

Bodvar