[MD] WHY MoQ IS PARALYzED

[Ham Priday]

Hello Arlo, Ron [Platt and Krimel mentioned] --


> Give me an example of an intellectual thought that is
> not dictated by grammar? Hell, give me an
> "intellectual thought" that does not use "words"!

[Platt]
> 2+2=4

[Arlo]:
> You are using mathematical notation for these words,
> but they are words nonetheless.

[Krimel]:
> How could anyone possibly give you an example of a
> thought not dictated by grammar or words?  How would
> the thought be conveyed?

Exactly.  This semiotics nonsense throws a monkeywrench into any logical 
premise or philosophical postulate.  If reality is nothing but words and 
symbols, there are no original thoughts, just an infinite variety of 
symbolic configurations.  I can see why MoQuists have latched onto this 
idea.  It's their "intellect" -- an extracorporeal scrabble-board of 
principles, concepts, and the grammatical symbols to spell them.  All man 
has to do is arrange them in an order that pleases him, but he gets no 
credit for idea origination.

Boyle's Law can be expressed in English, German, Russian, French, or any 
other language, as well as the language of mathematical equations.  But that 
doesn't make the principle a "grammatical expression".  It's the concept 
that: at a constant temperature the volume of a confined gas varies 
inversely with its pressure.  Robert Boyle didn't sit down one day and play 
with the words Volume, Pressure, and Temperature to come up with this idea. 
He experimented with gas jets, containers, and barometers until the 
relationship between pressure and volume dawned on him.  Only then did he 
put his concept into words and numbers so that his scientific peers could 
benefit from it.

[Arlo]:
> I'd say the reverse is true, what "defies common sense"
> is the idea that our "intellectual thoughts" are not constrained
> by the language in which we think!  Of course, we also
> realize that this is not a bad thing, since "language" bestows
> upon us the ability to have "intellectual thoughts" at all!

The thoughts of inventors, authors, artists, engineers, philosophers, and 
the woman next door are not "constrained by language"; we all use words, 
symbols, and images to convey our ideas to others.  All thought is 
proprietary to the individual.  All intellection is performed by 
individuals.  Knowledge and intelligence is what is apprehended by the 
individual, and language is only the instrument of communication.

[Arlo, ostensibly using language to communicate]:
> They way we conceive of our pre-intellectual experiences
> is mutated the moment we encapsulate it in words, and
> our intellectual system is mutated as novel pre-intellectual
> experiences are so encoded.  But these mutations occur
> within a structurated trajectory.

Try again.

In my ontology, we don't have pre-intellectual experiences, we have 
value-sensibility.  We intellectualize value into objective phenomena.  The 
structural order of phenomena is universal because it represents the primary 
'being-aware' dichotomy.  Only the value objectivized by the individual is 
experienced.  This not only brings value into existence as being, it.makes 
experiential reality unique for each subject.

Please note that this epistemological précis does not mention words, levels, 
or "mutations within a structurated trajectory".

Regards,
Ham