[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[Michael Hamilton]

Paul,

There is nothing arbitrary about denying that carbon is matter. Carbon
is a pattern of value, i.e. it displays particular behavior in
particular conditions. It values bonding with itself in certain ways
to form graphite or diamond, or bonding with other elements to form
carbon dioxide etc etc. Matter, on the other hand, displays no
particular values. Matter doesn't display anything at all, to the
senses at least. Matter is merely a concept by postulation. Assuming
the existence of an objective substance is an attempt to explain why
(as described in LILA) properties hang together in a stable way. These
properties are what we now label as "inorganic patterns of value".

(Note that phrase "attempt to explain" - a hallmark of 4th-level static value.)

Or, to put it more simply, carbon, as a stable pattern of value, can
be known empirically. Matter, on the other hand, is not empirical, in
the same way as causation isn't. The accusation you anticipated that
Bo might give, that the word "matter" is somish, would not be
unfounded, unless by "matter" you mean something other than objective,
independently-existing substance.

Regards,
Mike

On 12/20/05, Paul Turner <paul at turnerbc.co.uk> wrote:
> Bo,
>
> >> Mati: I don't know what your premises and conclusions are suggesting
> >> and how that will contribute to find a basis to discern intellectual
> >> values from other values which is my motivation in all this.
> >> "Idealist Assumption"??? I don't know Bo's SOL being any more or less
> >> an idealist assumption than Pirsig's MOQ.
> >
> >Well put Mati. Paul's idealist accusation is most misplaced, if
> >anything is idealist it is his own "carbon an intellectual pattern ..."
>
> Paul:  That's not my position.  That was me drawing out the consequences of
> your claim that the mind/matter divide and all that constitutes it exists
> inextricably and exclusively at the intellectual level.  From this premise
> it follows that, if matter is an intellectual pattern, and carbon is matter,
> then carbon is an intellectual pattern, no?  Of course, you will deny that
> carbon is matter but I argue that this is just an arbitrary mix of
> acceptance and rejection.  You give no reason as to why you are happy for
> carbon to be classified as inorganic values but not matter.  Do you deny
> that carbon can be called an element too?  Furthermore, you say that the
> reason/emotion split is a classic intellectual pattern but are happy for
> emotion to be classified as social nonetheless.  This is inconsistent at the
> very least.
>
> You have more or less evaded these questions to date and I can only put that
> down to your inability to answer them without undermining your argument.
> You will probably try to brush these objections off as my overcomplicating
> things or my use of an "unholy mix" of "somish" and "moqish" but who has
> definitively categorised terms accordingly?  Do you have a listed of
> sanctioned moqish terms?  What are your criteria?  You will no doubt say it
> is "obvious" and "plain" and all the usual cop-outs but when all the smoke
> has cleared I suspect there will be no argument, just an unsupported
> restatement of the very position which is in question.
>
> >But the MOQ makes SOM (Aristotle) a static level of its own, and
> >is  thus not part of that scheme, but truly a new reality. If we
> >relinquish that the MOQ is done for. I still believe this is what
> >Pirsig meant by the "you can't avoid metaphysics", that even
> >Stone Age humankind could not avoid constructing a world view;
> >A 3rd. level metaphysics
>
> Paul:  See my other post for the consequences of your metaphysics = reality
> premise.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>