[MD] Re-inventing the wheel.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Heather/ SA. 

On 22 Jan. you wrote:

> I don't see subjective as analogy only, but I see
> objective as analogy.       

In other words, you are in the same position as young Phaedrus 
who (as a student) had the insight that "an endless number of 
hypotheses can explain any phenomenon" i.e: all is analogies 
upon analogies upon analogies ... ad infinitum) . That he - as a 
SOM-ist - saw "subjective as analogies" goes without saying. 

> These are analogies of dq.

Let the DQ wait. 
 
> When I see a rock, this rock is an analogy, not
> different than what I can say, about ultimate reality,
> which is nothing-is-static pattern.  

If you mean that the word "rock" is an analogy for that hard thing 
you are right, but let the language argument rest too.

For a moment back to ZMM where his Quality came under 
SOM's scrutiny and P. first addressed its "O" horn. His defense 
was to show that objectivity dissolves into analogies.  This is the 
why I said you were re-inventing the wheel, this about objectivity 
dissolving into analogies isn't shocking news in our Quantum 
Physics age. But what IS shocking is that Phaedrus turned to the 
"analogy" horn and rejected that also. After this rejection he 
arrived at the said Copernican Revolution where Quality became 
the source of both SOM's horns, and by and by the proto-moq 
where the S/O divide is called "intellect". 

But now over to LILA and the final MOQ and its Dynamic/Static 
divide where the static half is level-divided, and these defined - 
not as subjects or objects, but as static value patterns about 
which a lot can be said.     

> I can't define
> ultimate reality, and a rock can't either

Using a rock - in the MOQ defined as "static inorganic patterns" - 
as an example of DQ is to make nil and void of the MOQ, 
returning to what put Phaedrus on his quest in the first place. A 
wave on the ocean is ocean too, that's no revelation. The MOQ 
has been through all that and makes the Dynamic Ocean/Static 
Wave difference its starting point.   

> Only human
> beings can chat about ultimate reality on this planet,
> as far as I know. 

This argument is the same as the language one, both are 
watertight and shockproof  ... FROM SOM SEEN ... but from 
MOQ seen both are invalid. The language/ what language is 
about is another S/O dichotomy and relegated the role of static 
intellectual value (at least by the SOL interpretation)     

> Yet, rock does not side step into
> its' own little ultimate reality different from
> ultimate reality.  

It side-steps into the static reality and because the DQ/SQ is 
MOQ's ultimate divide the rock may well be said to step ....etc. 
Ref. the ocean/wave example.   

[Bo]
> > Your conclusion (the 21 Jan) seems to be that
> > intellect is nothing 
> > but analogies. 
 
>  Very real analogies of ultimate reality.  

What keeps "ultimate reality" from being an analogy? Must be 
because it resides in language, or in the human mind.  You have 
simply re-invented the MOQ (wheel) in the form of a 
"Metaphysics of Analogies", and you are not the first to propose a 
different Metaphysics of ....". Nothing wrong with that except that 
Quality is the mother of them all.    

IMO

Bo