[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Marsha,


> Dmb got you stumped?


Steve:
No. Why do you ask?

Steve previously:
>> SOM answers to this question vary. Such answers include Locke's notion
>> that there are two types of substances: mental substance (minds) and
>> material substance (objects). Other answers include collapsing
>> everything into material substance or everything into material
>> substance.


Marsha:
> ZZzzzzzzz

Steve:
If you have no interest in what SOM actually is, why would you want to
say that he intellectual level is steeped in SOM?




Steve:
>> Now, where in all this do you get the notion that the fourth level of
>> that hierarchy is SOM itself? Where are the mental substance and
>> material substance that make up SOM ontology in this description?
>> Nowhere of course. Intellect itself does not require that we postulate
>> such substances.
>
Marsha:
> Intellectual static patterns of value are reified concepts and the rules for
> manipulating them, if not offer some examples.

Steve:
Your explanation of intellectual patterns has nothing to do with SOM.


Marsha:
>> We can think without making any assertions about
>> ontology whatsoever.
>

Marsha:
> The subject is intellectual patterns of value, not intellect which, by the way,
> is a reified concept.

Steve:
Yes, of course subjects and objects are intellectual patterns. That
doesn't make intellect itself equivalent to SOM. So are lots of other
things.

Steve:
>> Most people don't give any thought to
>> metaphysics. They just follow static intellectual patterns of those
>> who came before them, and  SOME of these patterns rely on the S/O
>> ontological assumptions. But we can even use the words "subject" and
>> "object" themselves without any ontological implication that these
>> represent two types of fundamental substances that constitute all of
>> reality. It is only when we make this presupposition that we are doing
>> subject-object metaphysics.

Marsha:
> SOM explanation through and through.


Steve:
I think you should try to figure out what SOM is before you say that.



Marsha:
> When a physicist can state that the equation calculating spin "is not
> just mathematics, but Real", RMP might want to rethink his statement
> about mathematics not having objects.


Steve:
In the equation "2+2=4" where are the subjects and and where are the objects?

Best,
Steve