[MD] Sobjectivism

[David M]

Bo

I think Scott's point is that intellect has a
place at the DQ table rather than putting
DQ on the 4th level as the levels are
all about SQ are they not?

DM



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <skutvik at online.no>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Sobjectivism


> 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
> 
> 
> 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/
>