[MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn

[David M]

Hi Matt/Krim

As usual this interior/exterior question arises here. One of the things that 
I think
is good about the MOQ is that it separates the DQ/SQ distinction from being
matched with the interior/exterior distinction. SOM seems to assume they
are the same distinction and MOQ helpfully suggests they are not.

This agrees with science that once looked at the external world in largely
SQ terms but increasingly has to take more account of the DQ nature
of physical relations. Also that many aspects of mind can also be seen
in SQ terms and are not exclusively subjective but have both SQ and DQ
aspects. For me science is very good at describing SQ behaviour, forces,
laws, etc as these are repeatable and recurring and can be isolated and
demonstrated in experiments. Of course much of reality, life, experience is
about DQ, is unique, never repeating, one off behaviours & events, new
and emerging behaviours, forms, reponses, etc, and science encounters
its limits and boundaries when it encounters non-SQ aspects of 
reality-experience.
This DQ/SQ division would seem to imply not dualism of spirit and matter
or chaos and form but rather that whatever unity may underlie reality that 
it
manifests itself either with or without repetition, given us simply DQ or 
SQ,
and that this manifestation changes, that the amount of SQ continuously
increases from particles to atoms to molecules to cells to organisms to
societies, etc, and this is what we mean by levels. I'd also suggest that as
the SQ increases then how DQ manifests changes too. Hence you get
consciousness as the SQ/DQ mix at the level of human existence.

What then is interior versus exterior? In a way for the MOQ it does
not matter, as the SQ/DQ distinction can be applied in any arena.
Seems to me we need to keep the inner/outer distinction in the MOQ
(not the SOM one) because there are clearly processes that are more
of less accessible to observation and description. Some things can be 
observed
externally, and in principle by anyone, others processes are less 
accessible,
and our only access may be via individual description of 'inner' events.

I wonder if you chaps see it very differently?

David M