[MD] now it comes

[skutvik at online.no]

Krimel the Obscure.

3 Aug. :

[Bo] before
> Mary, does not deny the fact that words are concepts, she just says
> that the levels aren't concepts. I.e. that DMB's Jamesian "Dynamic
> Flux/Concepts" doesn't correspond to MOQ's "Dynamic/Static". 

[Krimel]
> Not only is level a concept it is a concept that aids us in organizing
> other concepts. It is a structural component of a conceptual schema.
> James breaks it down into percepts and concepts. I agree with that. I
> also thing this maps pretty well onto the static/dynamic split. Dave
> for unspecified reasons resists equating dynamic flux with perception
> but he has been slowly moving in the right direction just give him
> some more time.

You mean that the term "level" is a word and as such a concept - an 
abstract? Yes, in SOM, but the MOQ rejects all S/Os including its 
pre/post language (concrete/abstract) one, thus James' 
"Percepts/Concepts" do NOT  match MOQ's DQ/SQ. The levels are 
not concepts, they are STATIC value. But it pleases me that you agree 
with DMB (all obfuscators rounded up to be branded :-) "Perception" if 
that mean sense experience different from after things have been 
given "Conceptual" names is just more SOM: "Out there" are no 
qualities, all such are added "in here" by the subject.               

[Bo]
> Language is the sea we swim in and cannot be used as any 
> metaphysical basics. 
 
[Krimel]
> This is just a catch phrase for you. The fact that we are immersed in
> language does not mean we can just ignore that fact; nor does it
> prevent us from using language in philosophy and metaphysics. Neither
> would be possible without language. In fact philosophy and metaphysics
> are just those parts of the intellectual level which allow us to
> inquire into the nature and meaning of language and into the nature
> and meaning of "nature" and "meaning." Recursion, you see? That's' the
> meaning of "meta", BTW.

Again, I did not deny any of these your trite "observations", I  only said 
that pre/post language cannot be used as a metaphysics 
(fundamental) divide because it ends in paradoxes, any pre-language 
something must be conveyed by language. Exactly as the 
Subject/Object is useless because the objects are contained in the 
subject. Let this sink in.

Bodvar