[MD] Empirical and Historical

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham

Thanks for your ability to extract "essences". This really goes to the
kernel of it ALL. Your editing was good, I just try to keep your
comments apart from the previous line of thought.

22 July Ham wrote: 
> I would like to offer some suggestions concerning the confusion that
> has appeared in recent posts.  Hopefully they will be seen as
> constructive rather than derisive.

    On 7/11 Ron said: 
    The idea of anything coming before experience is, in fact, an
    idea. The experiences you are experiencing right now,
    understanding and describing it is conceptualizing it, remembering
    it, is conceptualizing it. Therefore it is more empirical than
    sensory empiricism, because it is the now of experience not any
    conception of it. Quality, experience, is reality.  

    This prompted Craig to ask:
    So the idea of experience comes before experience?  

    On 7/15 Platt asked:
    Or is paradox our lot in life when it comes to thinking about
    reality?  

    To which Bodvar responded:
    I don't see it as paradoxical unless we regard intellect in its
    SOM role as shuffling around of ideas in our mind. It's MOQ role
    is the value of the subject/object (mind/matter) DISTINCTION or
    AGGREGATE.  

    Which led to further speculation by Platt:
    Maybe there are two MOQ's. 1) the mystic MOQ of direct 
    experience, 2) the idea MOQ consisting of DQ/SQ with a 
    hierarchy of static patterns.  
    MOQ 1 is monism, without pattern, consisting solely of value. MOQ
    2 is dualism, patterned, consisting of many ideas.  

> The only thing that is clear here is that trying to build a cogent
> thesis out of confused terminology is exasperating.  Since most of
> you have also contributed to the thread on Reductionism, my
> suggestion is that you apply a little reductionism to this empirical
> mess.

As seen Ron's "experience as coming before ideas" was promptly shot
down by Craig. From this arch-somish point of view one quickly ends 
in
the "idea black hole" and I'm sorry that ZAMM' great insight of
(IDEA/REALITY [mind/matter or subject/object] being a static fall-out
of the DQ/SQ constellation) being muddled up by LILA and completely
destroyed by "Lila's Child" where the slippery slope of "ideas
creating objects... etc" began. 

The point is : A metaphysics which set out to do away with the 
Subject/Object distinction as existence's ground (making it a subset
of itself) can't enter it again as metaphysically valid in the form of
ideas (mind patterns) without wrecking itself. Look to this
"Annotation 102"

    I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV paper 
    that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is through 
    philosophic idealism which says that objects grow out of ideas,
    not the other way around

Philosophical idealism??! Materialism versus idealism, SOM's two
mutually excluding aspects, and then picking one of these as if closer
to the MOQ!!!! I didn't believe my eyes the first time I read this.
The annotation goes on

    Except in the case of DQ what is observed always involves an
    interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed .. etc

With these new premises, what keeps DQ out of the idea vortex? 
Nothing at all. ZAMM had nothing about ideas as creating objects (this
was correctly relegated to SOM's idealism) after its "in-out" turn of
the metaphysical sock which made the subjective ideas/objective 
world
distinction part of MOQ's "static" repertoire. 

This goes for SOM's view of language ("concepts") as a subjective
reflection of reality. It's child's play to prove that everything is
language from its premises, and an efforts to construct a Quality
versus concepts is impossible without being smack back in SOM.   

                                   -------------------

Sorry for not commenting the rest Ham, but I feel that you belong in
the idealist camp by your "everything corollaries of human
sensibility". From SOM this of everything being mind patterns (ideas)
is so plain that's it's not worth discussing, but as plain is it that
SOM can't get rid of the material world, Calling it "mind too" does
not help one iota. This and the rest of SOM's paradoxes is what the
MOQ does away with, but then it must be understood . 

Just call me Bo even if I sign my full name, it's become my MD 
identity.