[MD] (Fwd) Re: John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01

[skutvik at online.no]

Calling  John, DMB and all interested parties


John said to Bo:
> Quality is ultimately the "big picture" - an Idealistic framework -
> and radical empiricism is the reductionistic mechanism thought (by
> some) to prove/produce its existence.

The MOQ as the ultimate picture goes without saying, it being neither 
idealist nor materialist is just as plain - these categories belong to 
SOM. Plain is it also that SOM's various tools - among them 
empiricism - had to be used by DQ to make it out of SOM  -- out of 
intellect.    

dmb says:
> No, the metaphysics of Quality is the big picture and it's an
> intellectual framework, just as all metaphysical systems are. 

That the Quality Idea began as an intellectual pattern is plain, but as in 
the case of all levels growing from its parent, it began as a dynamic 
pattern that couldn't be contained and started "on a purpose of its 
own". And after its departure it was THE MOQ and SOM had become 
its own intellectual level. 

You seem hell bent on regarding the term "intellect" in its SOM 
definition of a realm where concepts - ideas - are processed and by 
that token the MOQ will never be anything than another academical 
theory. And professor Buchanan may  lecture om RMP who will have a 
footnote in some philosophological work.    

> Quality is direct, everyday experience, not a mechanism and certainly
> not a reductionist mechanism. Quality doesn't need to be proved because
> the term refers to what all persons already know directly from
> experience.

You dear fool, this argument can be given for just anything. God is 
surely seen as "everyday experience" "not need to be proved" by 
Jews, Muslims and Christians. It is not the Reality=Quality that 
constitutes the MOQ but the DQ/SQ dualism replacing the 
Subject/Object one. 

> Do you need a mechanism by which it can be proved that you don't like
> lima beans? Nope. You just put them in your mouth and you immediately
> know they're awful. 

Sure, but senses are STATIC biological quality and very much "a 
mechanism". However, the MOQ does not postulate senses as the 
sole perceivers of Quality, the universe itself is its first "perceive".  

> This is not "knowledge" in the conceptual sense of the word, but you
> know it for sure. You "know" in the sense of a basic familiarity as in,
> "I know that face" or "I know that song" or "I know that kind of
> heartache". You "know" what I mean? 

Sure, but when it comes to the inorganic level all this about intuition vs 
knowledge breaks down. You are caught in the vortex of SOM 
reasoning   ... of the MOQ as an a subjective idea (in a mind-intellect) 
about  an objective Quality, all of which send sus back into SOM. Do 
you remember while you still were an original thinker and protested the 
idea-nonsense in the "What comes first" thread?  (in 2003 I believe)

Bodvar