[MD] (Fwd) Re: A World of Objects

[Ron Kulp]

Hi Christoffer

2 April you wrote:

> Ah, I'm sorry I didn't intend to make it a april joke, I was using
> another computer and something must have gone wrong there. In that
> message somewhere I stated  - in regard to your remark about the
> finger moon pointing - that I think you are right: A metaphysical
> system must incorporate e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g else it has failed. I do
> think that your SOL makes for a complete metaphysical system, since
> it incorporates everything. The question of weather or not it is too
> stale or any other thing is a different discussion. So I must
> withdraw my earlier comment and say that this finger pointing thing
> really hurts the MOQ - a metaphysical system must say that
> everything is incorporated within it.
Bo:
Yes, you did call it "the best finger", and thank you for that and I
also 
see that you see, let me just repeat. What haunts the MOQ is the 
notion of it being just some arbitrary theory meaning  that any  divide,

trisecting, quartering, whatever is just as good 

Ron:
By saying that it is one of many ways, does not imply that they are all
The same or "just as good". 

Bo:
- for instance SOM - 
had people only known that the moon was Quality (something Pirsig's 
hints to in Lila's Child by calling SOM a Quality Metaphysics only S/O-
divided) yet no-one sees any difference between a Q-SOM and the 
ordinary kind. A metaphysics in the strong sense creates what the 
moon is.

But again, once the metaphysical "M" is the removed the S/O 
distinction becomes the highest and best static value. 

Ron:
Highest and best implies that it is not alone, one of several.
   
Chris:
> And also I see what you are saying about the MOQ meta-level; the Moq
> isn't an intellectual pattern as such, it is the frame of reference
> that says that there IS such a thing as intellectual patterns.
> Right?

>From the depth of my heart: YES!!!!!

Ron:
If an intellectual pattern is self aware, does it change its
Status as an intellectual pattern? To concede that it may be
One of many intellectual patterns, even the highest and best,
Contains even this "idea" on the 4th level. But even the conceptual
Value of direct experience is trapped on the 4th. Experience itself
Embodies all the levels, it does not require a meta-level so to speak.
To bring this awareness of experience to communicable terms it must
Take on 4th level patterns. But no where is it a must that it be 
conveyed in s/o
terms exclusively. I know that many Native languages do not use nouns
or objects per say but use a running collection of adjectives to
describe what we term as objects or nouns. I feel what is being sensed
when wanting to see another level is the ceiling of current linguistic
ability to accurately define a concept like MoQ. Because MoQ requires
Neologistic underpinnings it would suggest another level to someone
taking s/o linguistic structure as exclusively representing the
intellectual level.
This is why I have my doubts.

Thanks for allowing me to but in.
















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/