[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[David Morey]

Dan said:
What? Really? Then I take it you haven't been reading any of the discussions 
between David Harding and me, or between David Morey and me. They are both 
pretty adamant about people experiencing static quality, which if you look 
at it logically, breaks down to an independent reality existing apart from 
the individual, or to a subject experiencing objective reality. In doing so, 
they are elevating static quality as the central reality in the MOQ. David 
Harding even admits to doing so.    And if you have been reading dmb's posts 
in the manner you suggest, then we must be reading things differently. I 
have never in all the years here read him in that way.


DM: No, here's my view of the MOQ. MOQ says lets not divide reality into 
subjective experience and objective things, let's see that experience is 
made
up of both static and dynamic quality, that patterns are just part of 
experience and are not separate objects outside of experience. Some people
round here seem to have got very confused about SQ,  they seem to think that 
SQ is not experienced, that SQ is about objects and therefore
can't be part of experience because they are starting to turn experience 
back into subjectivity and are reintroducing SOM into the MOQ,
what a disaster this is starting to look like! They almost realise what a 
disaster their thinking is so they are now saying that experience is
just dynamic quality, SQ is not really a form of quality for them, it is not 
experienced, it is sounds too much to them like a primary
quality, obviously in the MOQ there is only experience so all qualities are 
what SOM would call secondary qualities, for the MOQ
there are no primary qualities, but there are experienced patterns, SQ, and 
these can be experienced and quantified and measured,
that is how we can call them regular and patterned. Space and time are part 
of experience and are forms of experienced SQ.
That's why MOQ can beautifully describe experience and still allow us to 
recognise SQ within experience and still do science.
But because patterns in experience make it possible to do science we are not 
isolated in some sort of subjective idealistic
solipsistic prison,  praise be to the non-anthropocentric interpretation of 
the MOQ that includes SQ in experience, otherwise
we should not say that patterns are SQ that they are based on Quality. When 
you really get the MOQ you see that SQ is part
of experience and you do not have to exclude it from experience and try to 
turn experience back into boring old SOM subjectivity.
Once we see the SQ and DQ of primary experience we can recognise and make 
sense of the patterns that make sense of a world that
exists over and above what we experience, this is what science does, and 
science and what it does can and must be understood
from an MOQ perspective, the understanding of science can be improved by the 
MOQ and help to flush out the SOM problems
in science. But an MOQ that wants to place all SQ in an anthropocentric 
prison cannot make any sense of science. The Dan/DMB error
about SQ returns the MOQ to Kantian idealism, accepts the SOM division that 
Kant created between experience and the things-themselves and
then thinks that if there are patterns these have to belong to 
things-in-themselves and therefore cannot be experienced, so
accepting the SOM division and destroying the way the MOQ puts DQ and SQ 
back together again, where MOQ recognises patterns as part of
experience. Everyone who can see this must join together to purge this 
terrible reintroduction of SOM back into the MOQ,
we must resist this disaster and try to save the MOQ (yes I am parodying 
you! but hopefully you may see that I have an argument
that can point the finger at SOM infiltration just as easily and so the 
issue here is not that, it is rather an interpretative
difference and whether it is better or worse is a matter of argument, again 
the question is does MOQ embrace realism or
non-realism, the former is going to have to find an accommodation with 
science but I suggest that is very difficult and
problematic, realism is not derived from SOM, read After Finitude or Roy 
Bhaskar if you want to see why, Bhaskar
as a philosopher of science is anti-dualist but also against 
anthropocentrism and realist, I suggest the MOQ should be too).