[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham

8 Feb. you wrote:

> I don't know what Mark's feud with Magnus is about, but here are the
> issues he has raised, as I see them, Bo . . .

Nor do I, it was just Mark's excellent remark about the stability of (as I 
saw it) the DQ/SQ lay-out and his debunking the MOQ-as-dynamic 
fallacy, but maybe he talked about the stability of the instability and 
that's bonkers. 

Mark again.
> > > "Quality is fixed, it's expression in terms of evolution is not."

Ham
> Although I don't believe Quality is Reality, I can accept this logic,
> provided that what Mark means by "expression" is "experience". 

To pick nits I would have liked Mark to say: "The DQ/SQ arrangement 
is fixed, while its DQ isn't". That means that DQ cannot transcend the 
MOQ.  

> If something "expresses" itself it is revealing or manifesting its
> existence to an observer.  What is its appearance to an observer but
> "experience"?  And, inasmuch as human experience is limited to
> time/space perception, it seems plausible that a constant is
> experienced incrementally as an evolutionary phenomenon. 

I feel that you Ham - however subtle, academic and learned this 
sounds - speak from SOM's premises: A subjective observer who 
experiences an objective reality   ... maybe an evolutionary reality, 
maybe not. MOQ's point is that that it's the 4th. level that created these 
premises. The proof of this is (your favorite ;-) that humankind when 
the 3rd. level was "leading edge" didn't have any S/O arrangement.       

Mark again:
> > > "Even if Reality is everchanging, that does not mean that it is not
> > > Reality." 

And that's right. Mankind's hallmark is that of having a reality. 
Wherever anthropologists went and how primitive the tribes they 
encountered they all had a story about origin and destiny of "mankind" 
(themselves) . The old gods of the god-centered myths truly were 
"unstable" characters with moods and quirks.    

Ham:
> That all depends on what we mean by Reality.  If Reality is the
> physical universe and its components (again, "as experienced") it is
> most certainly an evolutionary system. 

Here you go again. People of old (social level) knew no S/O hence 
their Realities did not split along those lines, while you - a 4th. level 
dweller - notoriously speak about a physical universe as contrasted to 
(maybe) some "evolutionary" system.  

> On the other hand, if we're talking about Ultimate Reality (the Primary
> Source of all appearances), then there is no logical justification for
> imputing a condition like "evolutionary" to it.

Between you and me Ham I don't see much meaning in ultimate 
anything which is the then divided. People of old (social level) had the 
Gods/Mortals division in so many forms from mythologies to the 
Semitic type religions. Then the (intellectual level's) Subject/Object 
division and finally MOQ's Dynamic/Static division with all other view 
as its static levels. .  

Mark 
> > > "Even an ever-changing perception can be absolute in its change." 

Ham:
> This assertion is somewhat problematic.  A change can be a constant (I
> think physicists refer to it as 'delta')  if said change is
> non-variable, such as a steady increase at a fixed rate over time.
> However, there is no empirical support for "constancy" in the
> evolutionary process that I'm aware of. Also, evolution is only one
> aspect of Reality. 

I don't feel this as problematic for the MOQ. Its dynamism proceeds in 
the said static latchings.

> One can't simply isolate "change" and equate it to reality.  It
> overlooks the myriad functions and principles of the universe --
> physical, chemical, biological, electro-magnetic, conscious, etc. 
 
Wonder if not this is exactly what you say?
 
> In my metaphysical vernacular, Absolute is One all-encompassing
> Reality from which difference, multiplicity, and process are derived
> appearances.

Your Essentialism and the MOQ would have been identical if you had 
let the Absolute spawn something similar to the static level system. Or 
is it this you hints to?

Bodvar.