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

[MarshaV]

At 12:20 PM 12/28/2008, you wrote:
>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?

Greetings Bo,

I subscribe to the MOQ as a better world-view.  Calling something 
untenable, doesn't make it so.  And I hope you are aware, I care very much.




> > 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?

I am comfortable with paradox.

In the MOQ there is no thing-in-itself, no object such as a 
platypus.  Platypi are a spov.  It is a named conceptual pattern.  It 
is logic that failed the object designated as platypus and created a 
paradox, not the MOQ's static patterns of value.

I don't know what you mean by removed from reality.  Quality (static 
and Dynamic) is reality.

Light is both wave and particle.  THAT seems to be a paradox.



> > 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?

I did not state that I had the backing of RMP on this matter.  I 
would like to know his thoughts.  I came to this conclusion through 
my own investigation.  Static patterns of value are ALL named 
conceptual patterns of value.  Internal/external is a descriptor 
pointing to a type of referent.  Not dissimilar to inorganic, 
biological, social and intellectual.  Or grouping inorganic and 
biological together as referring to matter, and grouping social and 
intellectual as referring to mind.  Analogues.



> > 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.

I don't see the MOQ being unsound.

What kind of pattern is available that is not filtered through the 
mind?   There are none.



>Happy New Year and many good paintings.


And a Happy New Year to you.  I wish I could have visited your latest 
exhibition.  I remember how beautiful were the paintings you showed 
me.  I hope this New Year brings you more paintings and more exhibitions.


Marsha




.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.