[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Ian Glendinning]

Hmmm, John, yes the discussion was "about" intellectual level (in the
context of Bo's SOL interpretation, etc)

The two definitive points were about defining SOM. Nothing more than,
nothing more or less than, etc ... a minimum conceivable definition of
SOM, etc ...

Mary then went on (as you do in fact) to start the next sentence with
"if" ...her positing those points read conditionally to me ... IF
that's all there is to intellect, then it's a pretty bad concept ...
entirely immoral you said in fact. It was Platt latching on to that
anti-intellectual point I was responding to as dishonest, not anything
Mary had said. It should have been an anti-SOMist-intellectual point.

If we want to prove that Bo's definition of intellect is SOM, then
that's a given. If we want to debate whether it is a good definition
for MoQ's 4th level ... then you answered the question already.

Ian

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> To my reading, Mary's points about SOM were explicitly stated as related to
> the intellectual level, in fact, since she posits those two points as
> comprising the "entire basis" of the intellectual level, it's hard to see
> how they could be "not about the intellectual level".
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
> Excellent Platt, EXCEPT,
>>
>> Mary's two points were about SOM, (explicitly stated "SOM says .."),
>> not about the intellectual level.
>>
>>
> Mary said:
>
>
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> The Intellectual Level is the set of Patterns of Value that hold with
>> two
>> >> key points.
>> >>
>> >> - SOM says Quality with a capital "Q" does not exist because quality is
>> >> nothing more than an attribute based on subjective opinion.
>> >> - SOM says that the Universe is composed of nothing more nor less than a
>> >> collection of subjects and objects.
>> >>
>> >> This is about as minimal a definition of SOM as I can get down to.  If
>> you
>> >> take these two key assumptions as the entire basis of the Intellectual
>> >> Level
>> >> I believe all else follows logically;
>
>
>
>
>  The level of intentional dishonesty in the argumentation is embarrassing.
>> Ian
>
>
>
>
> John:
>
> I hope this is a simple mistake on your part, Ian, and not "intentional
> dishonesty".
>
> :)
>
>
> And as far as Mary's point goes, if that's all there is to the 4th level, I
> don't see why it's less moral for a social pattern to overthrow and dominate
> the whole level, since by the definition provided, the entire level is
> immoral.
>
>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>