[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi John 

6 Sep. you commented Ham's:

> >  What is also undeniable, but missed in the dialectics, is that
> >  the
> > split between "ultimate reality" and "experienced reality" is
> > absolute. That is, we cannot transport ourselves from an
> > objective, relational world to metaphysical 'Oneness' by
> > intellect, faith, or some mystic Sutra.  The division is
> > existentially insurmountable. So that what we do in our "culture"
> > or politics has no bearing on ultimate reality. (Sorry Platt and
> > Andre.) 

"Ultimate reality" is what we know as OBJECTIVE
while "experienced reality is the SUBJECTIVE, in other words: SOM.

John
> But Uncle Hammy, I've addressed this question more than a few times
> and I've never gotten any refutation back of my assertion that this
> assertion - "The division is existentially insurmountable" - is
> itself IMPOSSIBLE to prove. 

You ask for a refutation of the S/O split being impossible to prove? 
THAT you won't achieve, it was the S/O divide (as existence's 
fundament) not just being impossible to prove, but being WRONG that 
triggered the MOQ.    

> What usually happens when this ultimate mind/matter split is asserted,
> is that the asserter finds it impossible to prove the connection and
> so they think this proves the disconnection. tsk tsk.  That's not
> logic.  That's not even sophistry.  that's just pique. 

That the "mind/matter" (a S/O off-shoot) split is just as impossible to 
prove is also correct, but what's more, it's WRONG, matter and mind 
interacts freely. Particularly the mind/body variety.  

As told, the split that Ham regards "undeniable" is SOM, the  beginning 
of which was when Socrates invented the Truth/Appearance split, 
whereupon Plato decided that the sense world is just a shadowy 
version of the true ideal  world. This split worked its way up through 
the centuries creating paradoxes and inconsistencies in its wake. Can't 
really repeat all this "every schoolboy knows" stuff.  

This is what the MOQ "repairs" with its new fundamental split - the 
Dynamic/Static which is just as unprovable (let's not fool ourselves) 
but dissolves SOM's paradoxes (by relegating it the role of its own 
intellectual level where the S/O split is a static  value) and produces no 
paradoxes of its own ... as far as I can see. 


Bodvar, the "Chautauquer"