[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[David M]

Hi Paul

Would you accept reality=experience as an MOQ formula?

And then we could say a metaphysics is a suggested way
of dividing up experience? A 4th level pattern.

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Turner" <paul at turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots


> 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/
>