[MD] Reductionism

[david buchanan]

Bo:
It's clear that you're frustrated and that you feel unread. You have my sympathy to a certain extent but I'm just not interested in repeating our debate. I think your view has already been thoroughly defeated and here you've added nothing to this defeated view.
Thanks all the same,
dmb

> From: skutvik at online.no
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:48:41 +0200
> Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
> 
> Dear David.  
> 
> 3 July you said:. 
> 
> > One doesn't need to "deduce" the discrepancy between concepts and
> > reality from the DQ/sq distinction because that distinction and the
> > discrepancy are exactly the same thing. Concepts are static
> > intellectual patterns and reality is Dynamic Quality. 
> 
> You seem oblivious to the fact that the first DQ/SQ distinction is the 
> inorganic one and its perception of value is not by concepts nor is the 
> biological, only with the social level and language did concepts enter 
> the scene, but only with intellect did the the reality/concept distinction 
> occur. Your resistance shows how immensely strong intellect's ties are 
> - they want to dominate the scene - but these must be torn if one is to 
> enter Quality's meta-level.      
>  
> > This doesn't mean concepts are unreal. It only means that there static
> > concepts are qualitatively different than dynamic reality. That's why
> > DQ can't be defined. You can't have a definition without concepts and
> > DQ is the pre-conceptual reality. One doesn't deduce the latter from
> > the former because the latter IS the former. 
> 
> I know this perfectly well. The intellectual level is static and it's (in this 
> case) reality/concept distinction is the highest value, but not reality 
> itself and when examined it merges with its social parent. Your 
> mistake is to have concepts (ideas) as intellect's patterns. As said a 
> million times social level mankind had language, but did not recognize 
> any reality/concept split, this came with intellect, and in the Turner 
> letter Pirsig said that intellect emerged with the Greeks ...have you 
> forgotten?     
> 
> dmb says:
>  
> > Huh? Concepts ARE differentiations. 
> 
> Again, the static differentiation begins with the inorganic level, only 
> with the intellectual level did the reality/language split occur. The 
> differentiation between a reality out there and concepts in our minds is 
> INTELLECT's VALUE.   
> 
> > dmb says:
> > Again, this distinction does not mean that concepts are unreal. They
> > are real AS concepts, as static patterns. 
> 
> All your troubles stems from the fallacy that the intellectual level's 
> patterns are concepts or ideas. It's master-pattern is the S/O split and 
> its many off-shoots: Mind/matter, soul/body, mental/corporeal, 
> culture/nature, reality/concepts ... etc..  
> 
> =================== STOP PRESS ======================
> 
> > Even in the MOQ, distinctions have to made and concepts have to be
> > involved or you don't have any kind of philosophy. 
> 
> Yes, this IS the very heart of the matter and this post should only have 
> been about this point. Language is the medium we live by and must 
> NOT be involved (except as coming to pass sometime in history) If we 
> try to include it f.ex by saying that existence's deepest split is between 
> reality and language it's a catastrophe. It makes the MOQ a subset of 
> SOM  (which IS the very reality/language split) and inherits all its 
> platypuses. While SOM as the 4th level makes all puzzle bits fall into 
> place. The paradoxes are explained by the intellect's static quality, 
> while all its benefits are intact.     
> 
> ====================================================
> 
> > The trick is to make bettedistinctions than the other guy and
> > Pirsig's distinctions are designed to do just that, with the "other
> > guy" in this case being SOM. The MOQ's distinction between dynamic and
> > static replaces the distinction between subjects and objects.
> 
> Agreement, but SOM can't be jettisoned it must find a place within the 
> MOQ and intellect is the obvious place.
> 
> > Pirsig isn't saying that subjects are more real than objects nor is he
> > saying objects are more real than subjects. He's saying that both of
> > thes are static concepts derived from dynamic reality. 
> 
> I wonder where he says that they are static concepts, in my book he 
> says they are static PATTERNS, the former social and intellectual, the 
> latter inorganic and biological. I don't buy this, but that can wait.
> 
> > He's saying SOM itself is just an idea derived from the primary
> > empirical reality. He's saying that SOM commits "the error of
> > conferring existential status upon the products of reflection". He's
> > saying subjects and objects are reified concepts, are abstractions that
> > are mistaken for concrete realities. 
> 
> Sure, SOM or intellect is derived - all levels are "derived" from the 
> parent level by DQ's assistance.  
> 
> 
> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009