[MD] Some historical perspective

[mark_maxwell at talktalk.net]

Dear Bo,


'The madman from an obscure school in Montana who now lives  
even more obscurely in New Hampshire is not convincing...'



squonk: Mad because RMP has stepped outside the mythos?

You and me, and a few others besides then?

Perhaps ZMM and Lila should carry a warning on their dust jackets: WARNING! May send you mad.

And not convincing because he has left it to his mouthpiece to do what he finds it difficult to do himself?



'...and a discussion that has as many opinions on the fundamentals as 
participants does not help.'



squonk: The fundamentals seem clear to me: The moq is a Dialectical Monism.

A DM is a Monism with two aspects in dialogue (the term 'dialogue' here is a phi
 losophical way of suggesting they influence each other, even if it appear to be one way).

These aspects are DQ and sq, as anyone who has read Lila understands.

That these aspects influence each other may be supported by the suggestion that sq migrates toward DQ, and that both DQ and sq are necessary for life, etc.



'The way Dr McWatt presents it (intellect) in in his treatise removes the revolutionary Quality from the MOQ.'  

squonk: The way our notional doc presents it is the way RMP presents it, as i am sure you understand, and so i shall remove our notional doc from further discussion.

RMP presents the intellect in Lila, and here it is patterns of sq intellectual quality evolving in a Dialectical
  Monism with DQ.

RMP doesn't use the term Dialectical Monism; that is me applying a Western philosophical context, but i do not believe it harms the moq.

RMP claims that static intellectual quality is ontologically distinct from all other sq patterns, such as the social and the biological etc.

Nothing particularly new or Earth shattering there, but it does introduce differentiation within the static realm.

RMP asserts that objects may be taken to be the inorganic and biological levels taken as a unity, and objects maybe taken to be the social and intellectual levels taken as a unity. This introduces a more severe differentiation, which may be ontologically significant.

The 'Quality' that you state to be revolutionary is reg
 arded by RMP to be a Monism.

The 'removal process' you claim RMP undertakes therefore is, i am assuming to be in your position, to have not asserted that all intellectual patterns have, as their basis, the character of being fundamentally differentiating in nature.

In fact, as i see it, you believe RMP actually did this in ZMM, but did not follow it through in some regard.



Is the above a fair analysis of your position Bo?



All the best,

squonk

-----Original Message-----
From: skutvik at online.no
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 9:53
Subject: [MD] Some historical perspective




Platt, All 
Oct 13. you wrote: 
> An essay about Einstein, Oppenheimer and the rise and fall of nuclear
 physic
 s in popularity among media elites contains a passage which puts our
 present discussions about the reality of subjects and objects in
 historical perspective:
This from Bertrand Russell on Einstein, Gödel and Pauli reminds me 
f our MOQ Discuss, particularly about the problem of arriving at 
ommon premises. 
    These discussions were in some ways disappointing, for, 
   although all three of them were Jews and exiles and, in 
   intention, cosmopolitans, I found that they all had a German 
   bias towards metaphysics, and in spite of our utmost 
   endeavors we never arrived at common premises from which 
   to argue.  
IMO the most weighty quote was this
    Meanwhile, there remains philo
 sophical work to be done. The 
   questions concerning technology that tormented 
   Oppenheimer, and the yearning for a philosophical resolution 
   of them, were not the imagined anxieties of a neurotic 
   individual but a sensitive manTMs reflection of perplexities that 
   run deep in American culture, sometimes shaping public 
   policy. In short, America needs a philosophy that is capable of 
   contextualizing the scientific adventure satisfyingly within the 
   American spirit.  
A bit US-centered, I would say that all the world need a philosophical 
esolution and that the MOQ is the resolution, but Pirsig's ambiguity 
nd the resulting ability to come to an agreement hinders its  
pplication. 20And the intellectual level is and remains what all hinges 
n. The way Dr McWatt presents it (intellect) in in his treatise  
emoves the revolutionary Quality from the MOQ.  
Platt:
 "As an example of the interdisciplinary and highly philosophical tone
 of Göttingen in the 1920s, Robert Jungk thus describes Born´s weekly
 "Seminar on Matter": 
     "These debates were concerned more and more with the 
   most basic problems of epistemology. Had the discoveries of 
   atomic physics abolished the duality between the human 
   observer and the world observed? Was there no longer any 
   real distinction between subject and object? Could two 
   mutually exclusive propositions on the same topic=2
 0both be 
   regarded as correct from a loftier standpoint? Would one be 
   justified in abandoning the view that the foundation of physics 
   is the close connection of cause and effect? But in that case 
   could there ever be any such thing as laws of Nature? Could 
   any reliable scientific forecasts ever be made?"  
"No longer any real distinction between subject and object". Phew, 
hat's the point. The intellectual level IS the S/O distinction, while it's 
tatic "rank" means that this distinction doe not go further down than 
he social level, the "real" distinction is the Dynamic/Static one. The 
OQ resolves it all in its gigantic metaphysical in-out-turn It's a bit 
oo much to call Jung, 20Born (Bohr?) Einstein - the lot - SOMists, but 
ll who don't know the MOQ are SOMists (exception for the Orientals 
ut they don't know they have transcended it) 
But, the problem is that most people don't understand the initial in-
ut-turn, they want it presented in some arm-long article by a 
hysicist with as many titles and by Quantum Physics terminology. 
he madman from an obscure school in MOntana who now lives  
ven more obscurely in New Hampshire is not convincing and a 
iscussion that has as many opinions on the fundamentals as 
articipants does not help.   
> The full article that those with interest in quantum physics will find of
 interest is at:

 http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-lost-prestige
 -of-nuclear-
 physics
Bodvar




oq_Discuss mailing list
istinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
rchives:
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
ttp://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/