[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[MarshaV]

Ian,

When you say "future possibilities" do you mean of an 'independent existing
time'?  Quality mired in s/o intellectual patterns is damaged goods.  Again,
imho. 


Marsha
 
 
    

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:37 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

Bo, you said ...

"Listen. ZAMM (in retrospect) rips the metaphysical rank from SOM by
postulating a deeper reality of which SOM (now merely the S/O
distinction) is a fall-out. In the full-fledged MOQ - with intellect the S/O
aggregate - we see the enormous impact the MOQ will have on
Western philosophy. With one stroke the trail of paradoxes that SOM
has left since the Greeks - climaxing with Kant - dissolves. They
emerged because the S/O was regarded as fundamental - as the
meta-reality."

I agree totally. Of course where you use the word "intellect" I read
SOMist Intellect, not the whole of the future possibilities of the MoQ
Intellectual Level.

BTW I never miss opportunities to put a bomb under those who
misrepresent the world in S/O terms - please be careful with your
criticisms of "all".

But your are no different to Matt and the rest of us (everyone except
Doug Renselle) using S and O "predicate" language in normal
intelligible discourse - it's not wrong, it's useful. We're dropping
the meyaphysical rank of S/O and remembering to avoid all the S/O
paradoxes - recognizing them as illusions and confusions of past
understanding.

Note Matt and DMB both using the more discursive style - to pepper the
concepts with a variety of words - so as not to get hung up on precise
objective links between word and concepts. Natural language is S/O.

Until we invent new language, or can bear to suspend concerns for any
objective definitional logic in current language, I can't see any
alternatives, even from you - except doing more doing than talking.

Regards
Ian

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:24 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Matt
>
> 30 July you  wrote:
>
>> It's true, I did use "SOM" in, what we might call, a "de re mode," as
>> opposed "de dictum"--I was ascribing to others the enemy of SOM,
>> though the moniker is Pirsig's.  It's what everybody does in reaching
>> past the idiosyncracies to the commonalities.
>
>> I think your comments, Bo, either display a very lonely way of reading
>> philosophy ("nobody is exactly like me therefore I am a lone genius")
>> or a very short reading list, or both.  Writing conceptual histories
>> have been central to a lot of philosophers at least since Hegel.
>
>> I think I would agree that James never did write histories on the
>> scale of Hegel (at least, I don't think he did), but Dewey certainly
>> did.
>
> Thanks for at least admitting that much, but as said there's no scarcity
> of "enemies" of the mind/matter dichotomy. Christ it began with the
> empiricists and came to a head with Kant who cemented the
> dichotomy so solidly that no one dared approach the issue  .. until
> Pirsig. But you (all) use every pretexts  to defuse Pirsig's "bomb" under
> SOM's ark and work overtime to re-build SOM in ever new guises, for
> instance that Quality is the Kantian "Thing in itself" and MOQ the
> "Thing for us".
>
> Listen. ZAMM (in retrospect) rips the metaphysical rank from SOM by
> postulating a deeper reality of which SOM (now merely the S/O
> distinction) is a fall-out. In the full-fledged MOQ - with intellect the
S/O
> aggregate - we see the enormous impact the MOQ will have on
> Western philosophy. With one stroke the trail of paradoxes that SOM
> has left since the Greeks - climaxing with Kant - dissolves. They
> emerged because the S/O was regarded as fundamental - as the
> meta-reality. .
>
> Such a dissolution we have an example of in the early Greek physics
> and its fallacious premises that produced a lot of paradoxes (Xenon's
> Achilles and the Turtle f.ex) With Newton's physics new premises the
> paradoxes weren't exactly solved, they just disappeared without a
> trace. The MOQ has done the same, but to you (all)  the SOM
> paradoxes are so infinite dear, what would academical philosophy do
> without them?
>
> 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/
>
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/