[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[X Acto]

Hello Bodvar

23 Feb. I spake thus:

> So to get this straight, what defines the SOL
> interpretations intellectual level is: 

> 1: Academic systemization 2: Atheism 

You spaketh:
Yes, these are among the many inevitable  fall-outs from the rational 
(objective) attitude. The academical system made religion a "field of 
study"  which implies that it's (merely) a belief, thus atheism is a result 
from general knowledge and education. It did not spring ready-made 
from day one but the S/O seed was sown. Through Aristotle as a 
"Church Father" Christendom developed an intellectual strain so when 
the Renaissance came it was primed for giving way to another 
intellectual consequence: the secular state  While the social locked 
culture "on the other shore" - Jewdom and its sequel  Islam -  can't 
create cvil democratic states, hence the notorous despotism that 
haunts the Muslim World  .. and the orthodox Jews now in the process 
of destroying Israel. OK, enough on that matter.    

Ron:    
Lets get history straight first Bo, Thomas Aquinas ca1225-1275ce
introduced Aristotle into the church doctrine, Aristotle lived about 
300 yrs before christ was born.


> we agreed previously on:

> 3: The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles
> of all things."

Bodvar:
Can't remember exactly such an agreement, but OK the search for 
eternal principles started the intellectual avalanche and those of 
Pythagoras and the mathematicians became part of the movement.  

Ron:
> (but now it is called into question by your assertions on mathematics)

Bo:
No comprendo?

Ron:
In your post to Platt you attibute mathematics to the social level.
But The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles
 of all things." is the intellectual level.


>   I would agree that your interpretation has it's greatest meaning of
> begining and first principle of being in relation to Rene Descarte. In
> his  "Passions of the Soul" and "The Description of the Human Body "
> in particular to your s/o arguement as it applies to an atheistic
> approach.   It is remarkable how most of the influentual philosophers
> of this time period are and continue to be today, mathematicians as
> Rene is. (which supports #3 in my opinion) 

Bo:
OK

Ron:
> This leaves #3 as the sole attribute of the distnction of SOM in your
> opinion  The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the
> principles of all things." for to believe this is to forsake all
> explaination concerning Gods and exhaults mathematical explainations
> over any other. Agree? 

Bo:
It's difficult to attune to your peculiar reasoning, but it may be exactly 
what I mean. Once humankind got wind of something deeper than the 
old mythological, god-explained reality, its fate was closed  ... in the 
immensely long run of course..    

Ron:
> Academic systemization can be traced back to the Pythagoreans, so it
> supports your assertion that it began in ancient Greece but it did notble 
> formally shed it's theistic  philosphical explainations until
> Descartes. 

Bo:
Agree, the long run I speak about.

Ron:
> so we are still left with the primacy of the defining SOM statement :
> The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles of
> all things." for it embodies atheism, s/o dualism, essentialism and
> philosophic realism. 

Bo:
Trying to find head & tail of your reasoning,  a tentative "yes", but the 
first recognizable S/O only emerged with (what Matt calls) the Reality/ 
Appearance dualism..  



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/