[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ian Glendinning]

Bo, I don't deny that possibility ... that one day a better view than
MoQ might arise ... but I'd say it would have to be something
completely suprising to find, given the road testing so far. I don't
deny it, but I would predict otherwise.

I have enough "faith" in the MoQ to use it as my metaphysical
world-view (albeit contingently, like anything.)
Regards
Ian

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:18 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Hello Andre and Ian
>
> 4 Aug.
>
> I had said to Ian:
>> 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.
>
> Andre:
>> Bodvar, can you please tell me what you mean by the last part of your
>> sentence...i.e. 'does not sound of MOQ understanding...'.
>
> Regarding Ian, it was his agreeing with me about the MOQ (in ZAMM)
> degrading SOM to the S/O and DQ's fall-out and further (in that book)
> calling it "intellect" ..... and then Ian going on to speak about "future
> possibilities" (for intellect) indicating that it isn't only SOM but the
> dreaded idea compartment that can contain whatever ideas there are.
>
>> What, for you, are the indicators that lead you to conclude that
>> someone 'understands' the MoQ? (this, apart from the notion that
>> intellect is the S/O aggregate).
>
> There isn't anything else than "intellect = the S/O aggregate" that
> indicates an understanding of the MOQ, but that again is revolution.
> SOM is no freak intellectual pattern that has hijacked the whole level,
> but the level itself. SOM its "status" before its Quality context was
> revealed.
>
>> Secondly, you seem to imply that 'static' means unchangeable/fixed. Is
>> this your understanding of the term static?
>
> My understanding is the same as Pirsig's, meaning that (f.ex.) biology
> can only produce/evolve new life forms and society ever new social
> configurations  ...and intellect ever new S/Os which it actually has
> done. But Ian's "future possibilities" indicates that an idea might come
> along some day that rejects the MOQ and still be a Q-intellect
> pattern. That's clearly absurd, but likens Pirsig about QUALITY being
> reality and the MOQ just some words about the MOQ , i.e. that all
> world views in the past were "moqs" just without knowing it, and any
> in the future will be even if rejecting the MOQ.
>
> Yours 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/
>