[MD] What is SOM?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ron 

Aug.18 

> Bo before:
> > As said if the MOQ uses this basic thinking as definition it's lost. As
> > tried to convey to Ron people from/at the logical level 

Oops, hope you understood that "logical level" was supposed to be 
"social level". 
 
> > (where emotions dominate) think motivated by emotions and 
possibly find
> > reason for their conclusions, but thinking at the intellectual level is
> > all about arriving at "objective" conclusions. My dictionary say
> > "distancing oneself from emotions and INSTINCTS, but the latter is
> > biology and no one is fooled by that, however EMOTIONS (social level) is
> > the great temptation because SOM has no social level.

Ron:

> Bo, if you could answer one question for me please, How does MoQ
> provide greater explanatory power than SOM? If SOM is intellect and
> devoid of emotion and instinct which is of the lower social order, how
> then does MoQ provide any greater meaning to SOM? thanks 

The short version:
By making SOM its own 4th static level all SOM-induced 
paradoxes dissolve.They were created from the premises that the 
S/O split was fundamental and the degradation to a mere static 
value level makes them (the paradoxes) vanish, no level is 
fundamental (pursued deep enough they merge with the level 
below).

The long version:
First of all "SOM" is MOQ's term for existence while the Western 
Scientific Attitude (WSA) dominated. an attitude that had its start 
with the Greeks as told in ZAMM . The said WSA did not regard 
itself a SOM, to it "metaphysics" was an futile effort to find an order 
to existence that that exceeded the only order that WSA 
recognized, namely the natural laws. 

Least of all it recognize that the subject/object distinction was its 
own creation, objective was how the material world worked while 
subjective was how people of old believed it worked, and how 
many gullible fools still think it works. 

SOM worked and still works well, but its last variety - the 
mind/matter one - started to show cracks when pursued deeply  
enough. Matter as "substance" dissolved and mind  - the observer 
of it all - was after all subjective!! This is the chief paradox from 
which many lesser spring and creates SOM's "poor explanatory 
power".

A paradox is the sure sign that something is wrong with the basic 
assumptions and MOQ says that the S/O assumption is the culprit 
and introduces its own DQ/SQ schism and this plus the static 
levels provides us with a new explanation that makes tons of 
sense compared to the SOM      

> If SOM is intellect and devoid of emotion and instinct which is of the
> lower social order,how then does MoQ provide any greater meaning to
> SOM? thanks 

SOM stripped of it's metaphysical "M" - leaving only the S/O 
distinction - is MOQ's intellectual level and it's value is formidable it 
lifts existence out of the social level's emotions (instinct is biology 
and that we may leave alone). 

About dissolving the most apt example is this: We know that the  
first Greek Physics created many paradoxes and these weren't 
dealt with until Newton's Physics, the point is that the Greek 
paradoxes weren't solved rather they went away in light of the new 
basic assumptions and this is how the MOQ deals with SOM's 
problems, there is no problem how mind interacts with matter, 
thoughts with bodies, culture with nature, soul with body ..etc 
because there is no fundamental S/O split, only a pragmatic (static 
one) but even so the intellectual S/O has given mankind 
technology - modernity itself.                

IMO

Bo