[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[David M]

Scott/Ian

I see no reason why the MOQ cannot be interpreted in
that way.

regards
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Ham & swiss cheese


> Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> Scott, I'm still struggling to get to the reality of our differences,
> but his view still seems quite un-MoQ-ish to me.
>
> Scott:
> Simple. You're a physicalist, and I'm (to coin a word) a semiosist. You
> think that semiosis is something that evolved out of physical processes,
> while I think that physical processes are a form of semiosis.
>
> To put it in contradistinction to the MOQ (where, using Arlo's categories, 
> I
> started out in this forum thinking of myself as an "extender" or modifier,
> but have had to realize that I am a "dissenter"):
>
> The MOQ says that Quality is basic. I agree, but since as I see it, one
> doesn't have Quality without Consciousness and Intellect, then those as 
> well
> are basic (and not three bases, but three ways -- and there are more -- of
> naming the basis). Because I include Intellect, I obviously disagree with
> the MOQ on its handling of intellect (as limited to the fourth level of
> SQ -- I agree that there is a fourth level that is intellect, but that 
> there
> is also Dynamic Intellect, which is the same thing as DQ. So the fourth
> level starts when DQ/DI became conscious in humans, so to speak).
>
> The MOQ uses a dynamic/static distinction. I also find great value in this
> distinction, but treat it differently than the MOQ does. The MOQ 
> privileges
> DQ over SQ, seeing SQ as being "in the wake of" DQ. I see the dynamic and
> the static as a contradictory identity, or to put it in tetralemma terms:
> one can't say of any experience that it is dynamic, one can't say it is
> static, one can't say it is both dynamic and static, and one can't say it 
> is
> neither dynamic nor static.
>
> In terms of morality, the MOQ holds that the intellectual trumps the 
> social,
> and that DQ trumps the intellectual. I agree with the first, but not the
> second, since for me the intellectual is (one word for) the dynamic/static
> contradictory identity. Now this means that all levels are the playing out
> of intellect. So what makes the fourth level different is that with the
> fourth level, DQ is human agency. We can now consciously reflect on the
> social, and so consciously change it.
>
> - Scott
>
> 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/
>