[MD] MOQ free of anthropocentrism, non-realism, idealism and a confined sense of experience

[MarshaV]

David,

Just for the record, I am not  an anthropocentrist, an idealist or a non-realist.  I am have been each of them at one time, but no more.  Today I see them to represent intellectual static patterns in competition with other intellectual static patterns.  May the best patterns survive and do good work

 
Marsha
 
 

On May 1, 2013, at 8:58 AM, David Morey <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi MOQers
> 
> I understand that certain people think the MOQ implies the following:
> 
> Anthropocentrism
> 
> Idealism
> 
> Non-realism
> 
> Primary experience excludes SQ and traps the MOQ within a self contained world that cannot recognise that SQ and DQ are unfolding in processes independently of human experience and prior to human existence
> 
> This implies that the MOQ cannot make any sense of naturalism or evolution
> 
> I suggest the MOQ does not need to embrace any of the above and should be seen as realist about the ontological status of both SQ and DQ and that quality is found in human experience, quality is not created by human experience.
> 
> This challenge has not been addressed in the archive as far as I know. If anyone can explain how an MOQ with the above assumptions can explain science and its realism and naturalism in MOQ terms without ditching non-realism, anthropocentrism and denying that SQ and DQ were unfolding before and prior to human experience I am all ears. More likely that certain people will start denying they ever said the MOQ implied such hopeless ideas. Whilst we wait, happy to discuss a realist and non-anthropocentric MOQ with anyone who is interested.
> 
> Tao is obviously realist and non-anthropocentric and non-SOM if no one has noticed. Realism does not imply SOM, go read Whitehead or Bhaskar and get your thinking straightened out -2 non-SOM realists for example, you should all get out more!
> 
> All the best
> David M
> 
> 
> 
> ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> 
>> [David]
>> Nonsense, you have no intellectual integrity, if you did you would address my points you clearly have no ability to do so...
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> Been done, by several. In the archives. Anyone can go check. (You seem to also not understand how an archived listserv works.)
>> 
>> [David]
>> if you were able to you would not raise this fantasy SOM windmill, you would respond by saying how you see the problem I am raising, and you would then explain how the MOQ can address my issue by explaining it as follows...
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> Been done, by several. In the archives. Anyone can go check.
>> 
>> Good luck.
>> 
>> 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
> 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