Marco To Elephant and all insiders
there is nothing to do. the more I try, the more you put in my mouth
words I've never said.
I think this is my last answer to you on this thread. Actually it is not
even an answer. We both failed. I think I'll go on with Roger, if he
wants. Take my post to him also as an answer to you.
Sorry to say that, but atleast I feel that discussing with him I
grow. Discussing with you is a dead end way.
===========
About materialism:
your little step behind about the accusation of materialism is not IMO
enough. I thank you for the non asked lesson about numericism, BUT I
reject even this blame.
> I think that my charge against you, properly understood and
> rephrased as "numericism" rather than as "materialism",
> holds true and is worth repeating. You (appear to) think
> that Quality, the fundamental reality of
> the world, comes in these little Quantum Packets
> called "Quality Events", and that the Dynamism of the
> Dynamic has something to do with the way these
> events form a series.
THIS IS NOT MY POINT. I've never said that DQ is a series of packets
called QEvents. I've said the Reality is a paradoxical Ever Present
Event. The only problem is that you can't understand it, and it is a
tragedy, in Shakespeare's terms.
I've said that we either can simplify (intellectually) reality as a
static series of events or we can try to grasp it as a dynamic flowing
perception. The more we focus on the "static" vision, the more we create
an objective truth, and the result are scientific laws. The more we
focus on the flow, the more we abandon any scientific objective view,
and the result is art. This could be wrong, could be stupid, could be a
nonsense but it is not what you are putting in my mouth.
> This is not materialism, true - unless we are to say
> that quality is what we *mean* by the material world.
> But what it most certainly is, is numericism: you think
> that the discrete and countable come
> before the continuous.
And you go on ascribing to me what I don't think. Either you drink
too much, or I was drunk that day! Can you please tell me where did I
write that "the discrete and countable come before the continuous"????
All the discourse following is a nonsense as it is a rejection of
something I don't think, I've never thought , I've never written. All
what you are writing about comes from a wrong interpretation of my
words.
ANYWAY, IMO the continuous comes before everything. Please, clear
everything and restart from here.
============
About Inside and Outside
> MARCO:
> > I will start from your point that the *outside* reality is
> > dynamic, while *inside* the world is static.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> This was not my point at all - the inside/outside distinction
> doesn't really come into it. I merely meant to deny that
> there is a distinction between intellectual tricks and particular
> realities - which is part of my argument that Quality *Events*
> can't be fundamental reality, but must be intellectual
> tricks to try to get a grip on the fundamental reality,
> which is continuous.
> This is what I wrote:
>
> > Elephant:
> >> Your idea is that there are intellectual tricks, and then there
> >> are real particular realities out there. Well no, there aren't.
> >
> > Marco:
> >> More... I say that even intellectual tricks are out there!
> >
> > Elephant:
> >> Neat quip. Doesn't really address the point. Even if
> >> intellectual tricks are 'out there' (which is a claim I don't for a
> >> minute accept or even really think intelligable), this does
> >> nothing to address my point that as an intellectual trick formed
> >> in the attempt to get something graspable out of the fluid
> >> situation, any object (including the evolutionary
> >> history of seagulls) is static, not dynamic.
> >> Have you anything to say about that?
>
OK, you state that the only particular realities are concepts. You
state that there are "intellectual tricks to try to get a grip on the
fundamental reality, which is continuous".
Well, actually IMO you trace a borderline between intellectual tricks
and the flow. It is not a "physical" line (as Mind vs Matter)... it is
a logical line.. an intellectual trick itself. I call those areas you
are delimiting Inside and Outside... if you don't like the terms call
them
how do you want.
However you will call it, IMO there's no such division. But you failed
to read it in my post... surely it is also my fault.
Actually:
> ELEPHANT:
> Yes, I do think language precedes the world of particular
> objects - that would be one good way of identifying me
> as a "Platonist" - although all that this thesis so far
> ammounts to is that *something* of language precedes all
> the world, and what this *something* is, I haven't yet said.
Well, even if you don't call it In and Out, you are just saying that
there is a borderline between the flow and the world of objects, and
that "something of language" is on the door where the flow comes into
the world of objects.
> However, I do *not* claim that the intellectual/non-intellectual
> distinction is the same as the inside/outside distinction.
> That's just something you are trying to put into my mouth so
> as to have me talk nonsense. Obviously the inside/outside
> distinction is one that is only available between
> intellectual tricks: indeed we might say that the inside/outside
> distinction is *the* prime intellectual trick.
All intellectual tricks can be true or false... it is better to consider
if they work or not (that is: if they are good). In/Out is a possible
trick (even, you state it is the prime).
> For of course inside/outside are notions dependant
> on, perhaps equivalent to, the subject/object trick.
>
> But you aren't going to catch me saying something that
> amounts to saying that that the intellectual/non-intellectual
> distinction is just a branch of SOM - that's what you'd like
> me to be saying isn't it?
I've never said you are a SOMish. Stick to my words.
Anyway, you see, in the first part of my post I tried to summarize your
position and it seems I did it well as you write:
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Well put. We will make a Platonist of you yet.
and ....
> ELEPHANT:
> So, do I understand that you AGREE?
>
Why not?? :-) You fail to see that I'm partly in agreement with you.
================
About solipsism:
you are right: you are not a solipsist. But I was not talking about you
there, I was trying to move from solipsism to arrive to the result that
In/Out divisions are wrong.
==================
Then:
You write a batch of blames on me. You never try to be constructive. You
don't want to help me correcting my viewpoint. You offer partial
quotations. A disaster. Nothing to do.
Examples:
ELEPHANT:
> Perhaps you have a concept-poltergiest or something.
> Responsibilty is hard to face, and it is often better
> to declare that some one else is responsible. Bad faith?)
> No, go right ahead - don't let anyone else tell you what to do
> with your concepts Marco.
Many thanks, No Comments
Even, in the end you offer just half quotation of my last sentence.
> MARCO:
> > In the end, I want to add here a clarification. The equation
> > I offered... seems to show that intellect is "contained
> > by" society.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Pause for a moment, and reflect. How can you really think
> such a thing?
Actually, my complete sentence was:
" The equation I offered... seems to show that intellect is "contained
by" society. This figure seems to contradict other figures of
the four levels offered by many in the past. Especially the one (from
3WD... or was him David Buchanan?) where the 4 levels are concentric,
but in inverse order. The contradiction is only apparent. This figure
comes from the viewpoint it has been designed. If the viewpoint is the
*intellectual* inside, the result is of course that one. Actually, I do
prefer the "dimensional" view where the real entities are static
according to a four-coordinates position; and are dynamic according to
their possible movement. Of course, if you look at reality from one
dimension, you will have the imagine of an *inside* looking at the
*outside*. Actually Reality is ONE. No *insides*, no *outsides*: both
*inside* and *outside*. No staticity, no dynamism: both staticity and
dynamism".
But probably, before reading it, you were thinking in what page of your
philosophy book I am.
===================
aloha
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
