[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ian Glendinning]

As I said Bo, a difference of opinion, but you present no relevant argument.

There are so many straw-men and accusations in there about "stone age
men" that have nothing to do with anything I said (or believe) anyway,
that I simply can't see the point of your opinion of those. I do take
offense.

All the levels continue to evolve ... within and across ... they are
still levels.
They don't cease to be levels, the MoQ remains intact. It's the
patterns that come and go
In the physical levels new suns, planets and islands come and go.
In the biological level new species evolve and mutate and die out.
In the social ... etc ...

Comment on this one assertion:
The intellectal level is a whole MoQ level ... not a single static
pattern of value ... it supports many long-lived evolving patterns as
well as dynamic possibilities.

Anyway unfortunately you've dragged us back to the generalized arm-waving level.
We were previously at a simple logical dilemma for you, of having MoQ
inlcude its own defintion.
In your own time.
Ian

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:24 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> July 31.
>
> I had 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."
>
> Ian:
>> 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.
>
> You know me and will not take offense if I call this nonsense. The 4th
> level is static and can't have "future possibilities" different from the
> present which is - and will remain - the S/O distinction. It's like
> speaking of the 3rd. level's "future possibilities". Once it was formed it
> could only evolve inside its framework . The first stone age cultures
> were the same social value that underlies modern day societies, their
> "modernity" is intellect overriding social value (and - Pirsig's
> complaint - doing it so throughly that is causes social insecurity).
>
> This goes for intellect too, the new-born value that drove Plato and
> Aristotle to their enormous achievement is the same that dominates
> our outlook so totally that we have problems escaping it ... i.e.
> understanding the MOQ, believing that "intellect" is a mental mindishl
> compartment that contain ideas, may shed old ideas and adopt new
> ideas in the future!!!!!.
>
>> 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".
>
> You speak of S/O terms, but that's exactly what your "future
> possibilities for intellect" implies; a subjective mind-intellect that in the
> Stone Age harbored "stone age" ideas and then as the times changed
> adapted to ever new ideas and possibly will harbor the MOQ as
> another idea, and nothing is gained, SOM prevails.
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree with using language's long-ingrained "intellectual" terms that
> include mind and matter in normal discourse, but right now we are up
> in the high country of metaphysics and yours about "future
> possibilities of intellect" does not sound of MOQ understanding to me.
>
>> 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.
>
> "Natural language"? The proverbial Stone Age people had language
> but it had no intellectual-content. This is the "temptation" of identifying
> Q-intellect with language - with thinking or intelligence. Pirsig in the
> PT letter spoke about the Old Books of the Bible as lacking
> intellectual content and that's correct. The prophets did not speak
> about "..in my mind" and " ...I think" or anything like that. I pointed to
> Pirsig that this can be seen as lack of SOM as well, but then he ...
>
>> 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.
>
> If/when the MOQ becomes our outlook language will adapt to it no
> doubt, but talking will continue.
>
> Sincerely
>
> 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/
>