[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[MarshaV]

Andre,

Move on, or not.  I still think Bo has the better point-of-view.  The best 
would be not to have a point-of-view.  I'm working on it.   

Thanks.     

Marsha








On May 12, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Arlo to Marsha:
> 
> [Arlo]
> Hence, ALL intellectual patterns are misconceived, as this "misconception"
> defines SOM.
> 
> Again, if ALL intellectual patterns are SOM, there is no conflict in ZMM as
> both the Sophists and Aristotle were peddling the same SOM-Intellect.
> 
> [Marsha]
> What?
> 
> [Arlo]
> ".. all intellectual patterns are SOM."
> 
> "Intellectual patterns are misconceived as independent self and other".
> 
> These two sentences say the exact same thing.
> 
> SOM = conceived as independent self and other.
> 
> Hence, all intellectual patterns are misconceived as independent self and other.
> 
> Again, if this is the case... if ALL intellect is SOM by definition... then
> where is the conflict in ZMM between the Sophists and Aristotle? BOTH were
> peddling SOM.
> 
> Andre:
> Hi Arlo, Marsha, dmb:
> 
> You've got it pretty well nailed Arlo. Congratulations!
> 
> 'The Metaphysics of Quality asks:Which values is science unconcerned with?...But can he argue that the moral question, "Is it all right to fake your scientific data?" is not a scientific question?...If he gets tricky and tries to say that that is a moral question about science which is not part of science, then he has committed schizophrenia. He is admitting the existence of a real world that science cannot comprehend.
> What the Metaphysics of Quality makes clear is that it is only social values and morals, particularly church morals and values science is unconcerned with.(LILA Chapter 24)
> 
> I have dug this up from the Archives in a post Anthony wrote to Matt (sorry I have no date):
> 
> "...you can see how SOM developed from first just being a methodological assumption for mechanics with Galileo ( i.e. where the observer is abstracted out of the picture), then to Newton who (when developing Galileo's work on mechanics) added the assertion that an observer only has perceptions when acted upon by material substances, then finally, as an ontological assumption in philosophy when Locke and Descartes concluded(wrongly) that a Newtonian observer had to be some sort of mental substance absolutely different from a material one."
> 
> I have also tried to convey this to Bodvar but alas.
> 
> Can we move on now?
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___