Marco,
I think I have been a bit confused about what you were saying - and it now
appears I went of down the wrong path entirely. Permit me to offer an
explanation - and, having read it, discover how we managed to hide from each
other the fact that we agree.
It all has to do with this word "event". You've finally got it into my
thick skull that everything that you have said about the "quality event" has
supposed that "event" can describe something continous and a [quote]
"paradoxical Ever Present Event":
MARCO:
> 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, in contrast, have assumed that an event is something numerically distinct
and thus antithetical to the continuous - largely because this is what the
word actually means. All our troubles and misunderstandings stem from this
one disagreement over the use of words. Such is philosophy.
Assuming that "event" means the numerically distinct, I naturally
interpreted your concentration on the "event" as evidence of numericism,
thus:
>> 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.
But you correct me:
> 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.
Well, it is a tragedy, but nevertheless I do now finally understand, so
perhaps there is a chance for catharsis.
I will accept your claim that an ever-present event is paradoxical. My
point would be that the paradox arises from it being a contradiction in
terms. 'Event' is (or so I thought) a word invented to convey the
numerically distinct and the discrete. But of course that's a kind of
authoritarianism about language, I mean on my part, isn't it? After all, we
can use words just as we please, can't we? If by 'event' you want to mean
the ever present and continuous, well that's just fine - so long as we get
to discover (as we now have) that this is what you mean.
But be warned, productive though it can be, that your individualism in your
philosophical vocabulary is a risky thing in two ways: (1) it hampers
understanding (it certainly confused the hell out of me!), and (2) it tends
to lead to repercussions in your vocabulary elsewhere, ie now you will have
to talk about "numerically discrete events" to accurately describe what
everyone else just calls "events".
I'm really very sorry that you feel
>Discussing with you is a dead end way.
and, well, 'sorry' is all I can think of to say. Perhaps you will now think
that we have finally hit furtile ground in realising how important this word
"event" is to our discussion. That's a typical ending to a socratic
dialogue, isn't it: aporia? We go all around the houses and finally realise
that it's this central notion of 'event', the one that's been taken for
granted on all sides the whole way through, well that it's *that* notion
which has really been the subject of the dialogue, and one about which we
really haven't managed to dig up anything useful at all, or even engage.
Atleast we now know where to start next time.
If anybody want's to tell me what they think an 'event' is, then maybe we
could start over from that point. Any takers? Perhaps it would be helpful
if we just forget "quality" for the moment, and only come on to the "quality
event" when we are all quite sure what an "event" is. That would be the
most constructive way to proceed, it strikes me.
All the best to all,
Elephant (puzzled once more)
> From: "Marco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 13:29:02 +0100
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MD Inside and Outside
>
> 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
>
>
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
