[MD] A realist MOQ

[Ian Glendinning]

Dan and dmb,

Jeez - more effing straw men.

(1) I didn't say those annotations weren't relevant - I specifically said I
couldn't see the relevance of the third one. (I addressed the other two.)

(2) Both your arguments deny what they (and I) actually say - that we (ALL)
do deny the primacy of subjects and objects. (How could we be here
otherwise FFS.)

(3) Being charitable your argument is you understand and they / we don't.
The point you are missing / denying is the suggestion of "differently
understand" or "differently express understanding" pointing to behaviour
needed to work towards common understanding.

Being exasperated and abusive is OK for a change or a break, but not a
strategy that appears to understand the point.

Ian


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:07 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

> Ian said to dmb:
> (1) DavidM is warning against the rejection of realism BECAUSE you accused
> him by name (in a thread not actually involving him) of "arguing in favor
> of subjects experiencing objective reality". Simply clarifying that it's
> the primacy of subjects and objects we're (ALL) rejecting - NOT reality.
>
>
> dmb says:
> Right, I named several people who all seem to be making the same mistake,
> which is nothing less than a failure to understand the rejection of SOM. If
> you've been following along, then you should know that Arlo and I have both
> tried to show that David M is using the MOQ's terms but he's really just
> talking about SOM. That's what this realism business is really all about.
> As he and many others misconstrue it, "static patterns" are just a new name
> for SOM's independent, objective reality. I'm still quite convinced that
> this basic first move is where most people fall down.
>
>
> Ian said to dmb:
> We're (ALL) arguing for a MoQish REALITY - and thereby rejecting the
> dangers of a post-modern, solipsistic, subjective idealism.
>
>
> dmb says:
> It's not about loyalty or fondness, Ian. It's about comprehension. As far
> as the dangers of postmodern, solipsistic, subjective idealism go, like I
> just said, "I do not think that, did not say that, and I don't see how that
> could follow from anything I said". Those concerns are baseless, are the
> product of some wild inferences by David Morey based on his own
> misunderstanding.
>
> He shows this with his contradictory phrase "pre-conceptual pattens", for
> example. He's attempted to construe static patterns as if they were
> pre-existing independent realities which we may or may not then perceive
> and conceptualize. This mistake doesn't take the MOQ on board at all. There
> is no real conceptual shift away from SOM but just a re-naming the same old
> objective realities from SOM. The problematic metaphysical assumptions
> remain unchanged.
>
>
> Ian said to dmb:
> (2) Those annotations are fine for what there were (in context as
> responses to specific statements) but they are not comprehensively
> definitive in their own right. Annotation 4 hedges its bets with the
> pragmatic "whenever practical" qualifier. Annotation 67 involves a great
> deal of short-hand and even admits it contributes to the confusion.
> Annotation 97 doesn't seem relevant to the current debate - but includes a
> topic we should return to - namely "social evaluation".
>
>
> dmb says:
> What!? You don't see how those quotes are relevant to David Morey's love
> of realism and pre-existing realities? Wow. I think they answer his
> concerns quite directly and neatly. Pirsig even tells us that getting this
> very point, "is important for an understanding of the MOQ"!  This is
> exactly what I'm trying to get DMorey (and you) to see: "that although
> 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first (pre-existing
> objective reality), actually 'common sense' which is a set of ideas, has to
> come first." Like I said, it's about comprehension and some people just
> don't get it. All three of the quotes make the same point. It's a good and
> useful idea in many situations, but don't reify it. Don't forget that it's
> just an idea. Don't mistake for the starting point of reality or the anchor
> of all truths, or whatever. The idea was, after all, derived from
> experience in the first.
>
>
> "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."
>
> "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which
> produce what we know as matter. [but] ...the MOQ says that the idea that
> matter comes first is a high quality idea!"
>
> "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."
>
> A fuller explanation of "the anti-SOM revolution" can be found in the
> opening post in that thread title.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>