[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[John Carl]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
Hey Mary,

Finally getting 'round to the old business...

You:

We seem to have a failure to communicate?  The thinker is thinking about
> things of their own construction.  Pretty much exactly the problem wouldn't
> you say?
>


Me:

Yes!  Exactly!  We do have a problem in communication and especially when we
try and communicate the thinker thinking about the thinker.

>

> > [Mary]
> > > Logic itself is entirely based in the
> > > subject, the thinker, analyzing the object, the thing thought about.
>


Me:

You know, it's interesting and something I didn't bring up before, but
something about OOP made me think about Pirsig, when I took Java once in
college.  I can't even recall the connection in my mind then, but just that
there was one.  I think I'd read an article in Wired about Gosling and for
some reason it clicked that he'd considered objects differently than they
were usually construed.

Or maybe I just had a good teacher who translated it that way.

Or maybe I just had Pirsig mania and everything named "object oriented" got
my spidey sense tinglin'.

But I don't buy the idea that logic is fundamentally of a
subjective/objective composition.

It doesn't scan as "proven", to me, and neither can I say it about spatial
intelligence which produces high quality music and art, yet I can hardly
deny such extremely advanced human mentation the term "intellectual".  Such
activity is extremely and highly intellectual in the play of concept and
abstraction, meaning and resonance.

But necessarily S/O oriented?  I don't get that at all.  Admittedly,
thinking about art, teaching about art history, analyzing art after the fact
of its creation is inevitably S/O oriented with a subjective preference for
objective patterns.

But in the moment of realization and creation, I don't get that SOM flavor
you insist colors every single aspect of humanity's highest ideas and
creativity.

[John]
> > Nah, there are more things under heaven and earth to be discussed, than
> > we
> > can even dream.
> >
> > "The man of character lives at home without exercising his mind and
> > performs
> > actions without worry.... Appearing stupid, he goes about like one who
> > has
> > lost his way.  He has plenty of money to spend, but does not know where
> > it
> > comes from."
> >
> > Chuang-tzu
> >
> [Mary Replies]
> I didn't realize they had Republicans in Chaung-tzu's time.
>
>

Me:  He sounds more like a welfare deadbeat, to me.



> > [John]
> > But if you wanna argue about it, as you seem to, I'll ask, how can the
> > cortex observe and control the cortex?
>
> [Mary Replies]
> If you want to go down this path, I can reply that the cortex is the
> hardware and it "knows not" what software is running upon it.
>
>

Me:

Ah so.  You believe all knowing is in the software, then I presume.  And do
you agree with me, that this software is malleable?  That differing programs
can be loaded than American Online 2.0?  That there is the possibillity,
likelihood and evidence that SOM 1.0 is not the only possible OS the cortex
can operate under?

I mean, Humankind has a long history, many differing ideas and much evidence
of more sophisticated world-views than the simplistic and easily dismissable
idea that reality is composed of objects to be studied, and there is nothing
else.

My first introduction to the conflict in worldviews, was when my first and
only living philosophy teacher, G Sessions, quoted the book Little Big Man
on the shock the natives felt when they encountered the European's view that
everything they saw was dead and manipuable.


Various philosophers and mystics have fought against that values-free
metaphysical stance since it arose, but none so effectively and well and
definitively as Pirsig, imo  I'm here to continue that fight and I conclude
others are too.

Even tho, as I put forth in my Objectivism Triumphant post, that it seems to
me to be a losing battle.

The natives found that out a long time ago.


Take care,

John


PS:  I wanted to add that I liked your derogatory comment about the awkward
and distracting use of the feminine personal pronoun.  Even though I've used
it, it always felt contrived.  But I figured, that's cuz I'm a guy.  But
people use it, I think, not to cater to feminine sensibility, but to cater
to improving accuracy in language.

Sometime the same issue comes up in religious circles like Unitarians or
something that refer to God as "her".  But the most interesting discussion
of calling God "Him", was M. Scott Peck's explanation that compared to God,
he feels like a little girl, hence the reasoning behind the masulinazation
of deity.  It is maleness which woos, pursues and actively penetrates.  When
he thinks about God, it just feels right to consider God as the raper and
man as the rapee.