[MD] Reductionism

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Bo,

I will work on the complications.  Thank you! for your encouragement, and
the Time you have put into MOQ.

Joe
On 7/13/09 11:14 PM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

> Hello  Joe
> 
> I've noticed comments from you that includes me, but I have
> developed some eye problem (when gazing at the screen for a long
> time some strange patterns start to appear)  I must simply limit myself
> ...give priority to "saving the MOQ" :-)
>  
> However, this your input goes to the heart of the matter:
> 
>> Imho (in my humble opinion), MOQ (Metaphysics Of Quality) reasonably
>> changed the basis of the logic of SOM (Subject Object Metaphysics).
> 
> Right you are.
> 
>> SOM logic defines an undefined subject by the action of a defining
>> verb.  In the case of dividing by 0 this is illogical. Descartes
>> states: ³I think therefore I am!²
> 
> As ZAMM describes it SOM emerged as a result of the Greek
> philosophical frenzy that brought that culture away from its old quality-
> based (Aretê) reality. Now, with LILA this must be put into a Q-level
> context and it's plain that SOM is the intellectual level emerging from
> Aretê as the social level. And only now can Descartes' statement be
> evaluated and we see that SOM (with him) had reached its final stage,
> a mental (mind) realm totally removed the material one. After
> Descartes - with the empiricist - arose the problem which of the two
> realms is the real (causes the other) and that see-saw that has gone
> up and down ever since. This quandary was what brought young
> Phaedrus to despair and triggered his Quality insight that (as you so
> correctly say) "...changed the basis of the logic of SOM"
> 
>> The  subject has only intentional existence.  Aristotle defines motion
>> in a similar way: ³The act of a being in potency in as much as it is in
>> potency.²   In SOM the subject is undefined (with only intentional
>> existence from the object) and becomes defined by the action of the
>> verb and object. E.g., the man is eating.   The ³man² is defined in the
>> eating, and we can distinguish the ³man² from a statue.
> 
> This may be correct, but terribly complicated. SOM's problem is that
> the subject can't exist without the world, and the world not without the
> subject, i.e. the mind/matter duality is an aggregate and yet SOM's
> logical base does not allow this so it's plain that a fundamental base
> shift is needed ... just what the MOQ is and in its light the S/O
> distinction becomes its STATIC intellectual level. This way the VALUE
> is retained while the problems dissolve.
>  
>> In MOQ (Metaphysics of Quality) the subject is defined in an
>> evolutionary hierarchy.  The object, the level of evolution, is
>> defined in the action, SOL.
> 
> At least the above about SOM = the intellectual level is the SOL
> interpretation.  
> 
> 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/