[MD] Sobjectivism

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mike. 

On 11 Jan. you wrote:

> Hi Bo,

> I have to wonder if somewhere in this post you skimmed over the word
> "sobjective" and read it as "subjective". In any case, I think you've
> misunderstood me.
 
> > > Ian and I have been bandying around the term "new-objectivity" to
> > > describe the objective fact of the subject's participation in
> > > Quality / reality. It occured to me that it could just as
> > > accurately be termed "new-subjectivity", i.e. the objective fact
> > > that reality is inextricably linked to consciousness and the
> > > subject.

> > Why not just the S/O distinction?

> Because I'm not talking about the 4th level. I'm talking about Quality
> itself. Hence the "sobject", from which the subject and the object are
> later separated out by the intellect.

Yes, I obviously missed your point - particularly this one: " To 
describe the objective fact of the subject's participation in 
Quality/reality.." 

But now you have shifted to the SELF puzzle. Who/what does the 
valuation and determines at what level our experience/focus is to 
be at any moment. Why an ache makes us "drop" to the 
biological-sensational level, or why love switches our focus to the 
social-emotional one ...etc. 

Or maybe you mean what in its time made the biological level 
emerge from the inorganic, the social from the biological and the 
intellectual from the social? Your "...sobject from which the 
subject and object are later separated out by intellect" indicates 
this latter interpretation. 

> Yeah, yeah. The thing to realise is that intellectualisation
> (distinguishing between S and O) is an experience too. 

Profound agreement.

> On another
> thread Scott is berating Gav for excluding "thought" from Quality
> experience, righly pointing out that this is a regression. Intellect
> needs to be integrated into the way in which we conceive DQ.

To Scott the intellectual level means thinking or mind and is just 
another name for DQ, exactly what I have been trying to save the 
MOQ from with my SOL idea that the 4th level is the more 
mundane value of the S/O distinction. There are some grand 
concepts that cannot be integrated into the MOQ without 
wrecking it.*) "Thinking", "Mind", "Consciousness" (there are 
more and if you had been around as long as I you would have 
remembered how many alternatives that have been suggested up 
through the years)  all could have served as the groundstuff of 
reality and resulted in MOT, MOM, MOC ... but Quality is the 
mother of them all!      

*) I don't mean these terms to be erased from language, we may 
continue to speak of "in my mind" and "conscious of" ...etc, but 
metaphysically they can't be used.

> I follow Scott in recognising consciousness as another word for
> Quality. However, to do this we need to distinguish between
> "consciousness" and "self-consciousness" - the latter, of course,
> means the consciousness of oneself as a subject (in a world of
> objects) and therefore does not arise until the 4th level.

See, here you are in full swing with developing a Metaphysics of 
Consciousness.  Drop Scott, he is the great "obfuscator" of this 
site.

Bo