[MD] A realist MOQ

[david buchanan]

Morey said to DMB and all:
... A non-realist MOQ takes on all the problems of idealism, anthropocentrism and solipsism, and opens the MOQ to all the attacks that have already removed these views from current thinking. SOM, unlike realism, has many well known flaws and needs fixing, realism is not a problem and does not need fixing. Sure SOM uses realism to try to justify itself, and if you reject realism you undermine SOM, but the reason SOM can get itself supported is because it is basing itself in something that is right, realism is right, it makes good sense of our experience. It would be surprising if something as successful as SOM was not mixed in with ideas that are right, the real need is to sort out the good from the bad, a more difficult intellectual task I know, but an important one, one that will help stop the MOQ go down a path full of new errors or dead ends. Undermining the substances of SOM is a big and important task on its own, if DMB thinks this on its own is not a radical task he is very much undermining the full complexity of what MOQ does, why is he so attached to just the non-realist element that aligns MOQ so much and so worryingly with the worst problem of post-modernism? The prison house of non-realism is not an easy position to argue against, it is perhaps an easy position to build defences up from within, it is a prison though, and it has a bad future I suspect, no future that is. Realism is the more open and fruitful prospect, aligns better with science and evolution, as I think we can see from DMB's evasions about evolution. ...




dmb says:

Okay, I get it. You love realism and you've concluded that lots of bad things result from the rejection of realism. Without that, you think, there is no science or evolution and we'd all walk ourselves over the edge of a cliff. 

But I do not think that, did not say that, and I don't see how that could follow from anything I said. In fact, I have already provided an explanation and supporting textual evidence from Lila's child on this topic. 

Look again, David. Your concerns have already been addressed several times and yet you keep raising them as if the issue wasn't already dead. 


"The MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as composed of material substance and independent of us.  It says it is an extremely high quality idea.  We should follow it whenever it is practical to do so.  But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific view of reality is still an idea.  If it were not an idea, then that 'independent scientific material reality' would not be able to change as new scientific discoveries come in." [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 4]

"The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter.  The scientific community that has produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces ideas.  However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 67] 

"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually 'common sense' which is a set of ideas, has to come first.  This 'common sense' is arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various alternatives.  The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality decisions. The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that leads to it." [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 97]


Yesterday I was looking for a Pirsig quote and discovered that you were saying the same thing to me five years ago. Five years! 

Obviously, I cannot help you. 


Good luck,