[MD] Re the intellectual level

[MarshaV]

At 01:12 AM 11/11/2008, you wrote:

>Hi Marsha --
>
>
>
>>At 12:50 PM 11/10/2008, you wrote:
>>>To intellectualize is to reason objectively.  Can anyone deny this?
>>
>>I'd like to know exactly how you are defining the word 'objectively'?
>
>I define "objective" as the dictionary does: "Having the status of 
>or constituting an object ...as belonging or related to an object to 
>be delineated."  The things we reason about are causes and effects, 
>human virtues, proper or expedient actions, probable risks or 
>outcomes, punitive judgments, and logical propositions -- all of 
>which are based on a relational world of objective phenomena.

Greetings Ham,

I asked about your use of the word 'objectively' because within the 
MOQ there are no objects.  There are static patterns of value which 
are analogues and generalities.  And SPoVs are interrelational, not 
the product of cause and effect.  To my way of thinking, the MOQ is 
about relationship , not differences.


Marsha

p.s.  I can quite easily create a painting using a monotone.







>This is true even in the art world with which you are familiar.  You 
>select a scene or motif to paint from a variety of possible 
>subjects, choose colors that contrast or blend with each other, and 
>decide on the focal element relative to the composition.  The 
>composer of music works the same way, usually starting with a theme 
>he wants to develop, scoring harmonies, variations, rythyms and 
>tempos from the options available, and deciding on the instruments 
>or orchestration that will be most effective.  Try painting or 
>scoring in a monotone.  Try reasoning about a monad.  It doesn't get 
>you very far.  In fact, it's impossible.
>
>Why do you think Pirsig refued to define Quality?  Why do you 
>suppose I had to search back to the 15th century to find a 
>definition for Essence that could be expressed as a logical proposition?
>
>We live in a relational world and are so accustomed to 
>differentiation and variety that we take it for granted.  All our 
>reasoning depends on the relationship of one thing to 
>another.  Intellection, or logical analysis, is comparative.  A = B, 
>not C.  X relates to Y, not Z.  If  A is the cause of B, and B 
>equals C, A is the cause of C.  And so on.  If you're dealing with 
>an absolute, your logic is limited to A is A, which is hardly an 
>intellectual breakthrough.
>
>I guess you get the idea.  I'll be interested to see how you challenge it.
>
>Regards,
>Ham
>
>
>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/

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.