[MD] Tit's

[David M]

Hi folks/DMB/TiTs lovers

That sounds about right. But what is this idea/concept of objectivity. How 
should MOQ understand SOM?
We experience certain qualities and we put them together in a pattern we 
name as a 'wall'.
What is the status of this wall? When we turn our back on this wall and 
cease to experience it does it
still exist? We can turn back to check and find that the experience returns. 
Is objectivity the idea that
there is something that exists between experiences that give continuity to 
these experiences?
What Krim & Kant calls TiTs. Are TiTs the 'possibility' not always realised 
of certain experiences occuring?
Is this what MOQ is suiggesting?

David M

>
> dmb says:
> The fact that we can't walk through walls remains even if we reject SOM. 
> Likewise, adopting the MOQ does not entail any claims about being able to 
> walk through walls. Think of it in terms of reversing the relationship 
> between "objects" and "quality". SOM says the wall is an objective 
> reality, a real substance, and its properties or qualities are such that 
> it can not be walked through. It has hardness and flatness. It offers 
> resistance when we put pressure on it. The MOQ says that these qualities 
> come first and that the "wall" is secondary, an interpretation of the 
> qualities felt in experience. And of course the idea of a "wall" works 
> well with many other ideas such as doors and windows. (The idea of a wall 
> also connects to paint, to floors, ceilings, houses, gardens, towns, 
> Berlin during the Cold War, China during the Mongol invasions and, the 
> line between church and state, a place of blindfolded executions, to a 
> lesser or greater degree, to every other idea in the whole lang
> uage system.) In the MOQ, the experience of not being able to walk through 
> is more real than the "wall". As in the hot stove example, the "wall" is 
> subsequently ascribed as the reason or cause of not being able to walk 
> through. Rejecting SOM in no way denies the experience from which these 
> ideas are derived, it is simply a matter of stepping back to see that 
> subjects and objects are conventional concepts, useful concepts, rather 
> than the starting point of reality or the cause of experience. The MOQ 
> says that experience comes first, that experience IS reality. In that 
> sense, not being able to walk through is as real as it gets.
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008
> 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/
>