[MD] CBC Ideas: Homo (Sapiens) Neanderthalensis & etc.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Marsha

27 Dec.:

[Bo:] had written
> >Here's where I balk. MOQ's configuration isn't DQ/CONCEPTS.
> >Concepts as less real than the reality they conceptualize is
> >intellect (S/O). Or turned round: The reality that we by language try
> >to conceptualize is science's objective truth. This is the highest
> >STATIC good yet subordinated the overall DQ/SQ configuration
 
Marsha:
> Your bulking does not bother me.  I'd be bothered if RMP bulked,
> because it is his ZAMM and LILA that I joined this list.  I did not
> join this group because of your SOL interpretation of his MOQ.  It is
> an interesting interpretation and you are entitled to hold it, but it
> is not THE interpretation, and not an interpretation that interests
> me.  I am more interested in the nature of all patterns.

OK, you subscribe to the DQ/MOQ (the latter as concepts) "meta-
metaphysics"  which isn't even interesting because it's untenable, but 
who cares?  

> I understand all patterns to be conceptual/thought patterns. 

At the intellectual level (or SOM if you prefer) concepts/thoughts are 
supposed to be removed from the reality they "treat", but the point is  
that this distinction creates paradoxes (platypis) and what the MOQ is 
supposed to "dissolve" by its new metaphysical distinction - the DQ/SQ  
- and I'm aghast to see it rendered impotent by the said "DQ/MOQ" 
meta-metaphysics, but again who cares?   

> The nature of ALL static patterns of value is conceptual.  Inorganic
> and biological patterns have as their referent external phenomenon, and
> Social and Intellectual patterns having as their referent internal
> concepts.  ALL these conceptual patterns equal reality.  Dynamic
> Quality is outside of this static patterned reality, and is unknown to
> us. 

Well, who am I to stop you when you believe you have the backing of 
RMP, but let me ask you: The internal/external distinction which is a 
subset of S/O, does it belong to the MOQ, a metaphysics that rejects 
the S/O distinction or is it just a conceptual wordplay? 

> So what do I think is gained by understanding the nature of 
> patterns?  As overlapping, interrelated, interconnected mind (not
> brain) stuff, patterns become transparent and cannot be mistaken for
> subjects or objects.  Patterns can still be pursued for a better
> understanding, but with a higher respect for the fact that then are
> ever-changing, overlapping, interconnected and interrelated and not 
> different from our experience.

All about overlapping, interrelated, interconnected ...mistaken 
mind/matter, levels pursued for better understanding ... etc are things 
we all agree about, only that some want it to have a sound logical 
base.

Happy New Year and many good paintings.

Bo