[MD] (Fwd) Re: British Emergentism

[John Carl]

I smile at your "real reality" Steve.

Will the real reality  please stand up!



On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Andre Broersen
> <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > John to Steve:
> > The easiest way to describe my disagreement is when my reality is
> > conceptual - the LAW of gravity, for instance.  It's a piece of
> > symbolic reasoning that can be completely and thoroughly encapsulated
> > by the human mind, transmitted cleanly and in its pattern - conceived
> > as a piece of reality itself - is only transmittable through language.
> >   How can you then say that language can't get us any closer to the
> > reality of the law of gravity?
> >
> > Andre:
> > Hi John (again). I think that the MoQ would consider the Law of
> > Gravity a high quality intellectual PoV as a description of (a part
> > of) reality. However, this description is not reality itself.
>
> Steve:
> I'd say so too, Andre.
>
> John, I don't mean that words aren't real. Of course they are. I'm
> critiquing the idea that there is a real Reality that stands behind a
> veil of appearances, and that we are either hopelessly out of touch
> with this real Reality or we can hope to someday discover the correct
> words that get us in touch with the way things really are. Bo seems to
> think that the MOQ is that set of correct words.
>
> Best,
> Steve
> 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/
>