[MD] Replacing SOM

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, David Morey <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> When a shrimp identifies its mate is this pre-intellectual or not?

Dan:
Not. Mating is biological.

>
> I've always assumed that identification, pattern, regularity, sameness
> is something that goes on pre-intellectually in all forms of interaction and
> information exchange in the cosmos, in molecules, in life before intellect
> comes along, and this is all pre-intellectual SQ. Sure Pirsig does not state
> this obvious fact of experience in these terms but I assume it is what he
> was pointing his finger at. Do you really think there are no static
> qualities
> in experience before intellect, words, concepts?

Dan:
Static quality emerges from experience. There is no way to say whether
or not static quality exists before it emerges from experience.

> What are colours, shapes,
> smells, feelings if not SQ?

Dan:
Well, these are all static quality concepts. Whoever said they were not?

> I find it hard to make sense of the MOQ without
> pre-intellectual SQ, or make sense of the history of the cosmos prior
> to human intellectual becoming if we adopt this strange way if interpreting
> SQ as I see it.

Dan:
There is nothing strange about it. What is strange is statements like
'pre-intellectual SQ.'

>
> If SQ did not exist before human being how does MOQ explain DNA?

Dan:
DNA is a static quality pattern that emerges from experience. Remember
the bit about gravity in ZMM? Did DNA exist before Crick and Watson
discovered it?

> This
> is making MOQ an idealism and non-realist, bad move I'd suggest, it is
> anti-scientific too.

Dan:
The MOQ subscribes to pure empiricism. It encompasses scientific
materialism as well as philosophic idealism.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com