[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[skutvik at online.no]

Ham. 

24 Feb. wrote:

> Sadly you disappoint me.  I thought you had it all figured out, and
> that your SOL was the metaphysical explanation.

What will NOT disappoint you short of prostrating oneself ?   

> What you are summarizing is physical (objective) existence, not
> ultimate Reality......

When talking about "nature" my focus is at the intellectual level. 
MOQ's meta-level is for the ultimate view, no place to dwell 
permanently.    

> [Bo]:
> > Why this "intellect" you constantly ascribe some
> > special role in (my) MOQ?
 
> I assume intellect has a special role because you constantly single it
> out as "fundamental".   For example: 2/17:"My definition of intellect
> (in case of language) is "the fundamental split between the concept and
> the reality conceptualized". 

As said to Andre one hopes that one's utterings will be understood, 
but alas. Here I describes intellect's own - internal - view. It 
regards everything through its S/O glasses and as said in case of 
language it manifests in concepts=subjective/what it 
conceptualizes= objective. Get it? 

> Evidently you believe that something can come from nothing. 

According to fractional geometry every possible form emanates 
from nothing, or from Chaos if that sounds better. 

> .. Tell me, Bo, is it more logical to ascribe potentiality to
> nothingness than to Absolute Essence? I'm amazed that someone with your
> intellect could come to that conclusion. 

I regard Essence as another name for the dynamic source of 
everything and have already placed you in the same position as 
young Phaedrus, but - alas - who wants to be placed in positions 
or compared to someone else? In this camp there are only chiefs, 
no Indians.  .



Bo