[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ian Glendinning]

Marsha,

I don't think any time can exists "independently" ... ie every time
has "some" history ... and some perennial philosophical wisdom will
always be "good" ... and there will be cosmological echos in our
environment.

But in a sense yes, I am talking of a time when the primacy of S/O
intellect has been dropped from widely accepted wisdom. Next week
maybe :-)

As I said to John and DMB, the purity of that quality (pure
experience) will always be contaminated by concepts to some degreee
... the key is to notice that for what it is - contamination ... in
the mire as you put it.

Ian

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:07 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> When you say "future possibilities" do you mean of an 'independent existing
> time'?  Quality mired in s/o intellectual patterns is damaged goods.  Again,
> imho.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:37 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Philosophology
>
> Bo, you said ...
>
> "Listen. ZAMM (in retrospect) rips the metaphysical rank from SOM by
> postulating a deeper reality of which SOM (now merely the S/O
> distinction) is a fall-out. In the full-fledged MOQ - with intellect the S/O
> aggregate - we see the enormous impact the MOQ will have on
> Western philosophy. With one stroke the trail of paradoxes that SOM
> has left since the Greeks - climaxing with Kant - dissolves. They
> emerged because the S/O was regarded as fundamental - as the
> meta-reality."
>
> I agree totally. Of course where you use the word "intellect" I read
> SOMist Intellect, not the whole of the future possibilities of the MoQ
> Intellectual Level.
>
> BTW I never miss opportunities to put a bomb under those who
> misrepresent the world in S/O terms - please be careful with your
> criticisms of "all".
>
> But your are no different to Matt and the rest of us (everyone except
> Doug Renselle) using S and O "predicate" language in normal
> intelligible discourse - it's not wrong, it's useful. We're dropping
> the meyaphysical rank of S/O and remembering to avoid all the S/O
> paradoxes - recognizing them as illusions and confusions of past
> understanding.
>
> Note Matt and DMB both using the more discursive style - to pepper the
> concepts with a variety of words - so as not to get hung up on precise
> objective links between word and concepts. Natural language is S/O.
>
> Until we invent new language, or can bear to suspend concerns for any
> objective definitional logic in current language, I can't see any
> alternatives, even from you - except doing more doing than talking.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:24 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>> Matt
>>
>> 30 July you  wrote:
>>
>>> It's true, I did use "SOM" in, what we might call, a "de re mode," as
>>> opposed "de dictum"--I was ascribing to others the enemy of SOM,
>>> though the moniker is Pirsig's.  It's what everybody does in reaching
>>> past the idiosyncracies to the commonalities.
>>
>>> I think your comments, Bo, either display a very lonely way of reading
>>> philosophy ("nobody is exactly like me therefore I am a lone genius")
>>> or a very short reading list, or both.  Writing conceptual histories
>>> have been central to a lot of philosophers at least since Hegel.
>>
>>> I think I would agree that James never did write histories on the
>>> scale of Hegel (at least, I don't think he did), but Dewey certainly
>>> did.
>>
>> Thanks for at least admitting that much, but as said there's no scarcity
>> of "enemies" of the mind/matter dichotomy. Christ it began with the
>> empiricists and came to a head with Kant who cemented the
>> dichotomy so solidly that no one dared approach the issue  .. until
>> Pirsig. But you (all) use every pretexts  to defuse Pirsig's "bomb" under
>> SOM's ark and work overtime to re-build SOM in ever new guises, for
>> instance that Quality is the Kantian "Thing in itself" and MOQ the
>> "Thing for us".
>>
>> Listen. ZAMM (in retrospect) rips the metaphysical rank from SOM by
>> postulating a deeper reality of which SOM (now merely the S/O
>> distinction) is a fall-out. In the full-fledged MOQ - with intellect the
> S/O
>> aggregate - we see the enormous impact the MOQ will have on
>> Western philosophy. With one stroke the trail of paradoxes that SOM
>> has left since the Greeks - climaxing with Kant - dissolves. They
>> emerged because the S/O was regarded as fundamental - as the
>> meta-reality. .
>>
>> Such a dissolution we have an example of in the early Greek physics
>> and its fallacious premises that produced a lot of paradoxes (Xenon's
>> Achilles and the Turtle f.ex) With Newton's physics new premises the
>> paradoxes weren't exactly solved, they just disappeared without a
>> trace. The MOQ has done the same, but to you (all)  the SOM
>> paradoxes are so infinite dear, what would academical philosophy do
>> without them?
>>
>> Bodvar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>