Looking forward to Rome Marco - and if my hearing improves I may even try to
learn italian.
As we walk along the road, care to comment on my throwaway line that you
overlooked? The one about maps:
> MARCO WROTE:
>> I agree with Roger about the warning in the bottom of the map. But I
>> would like to discuss the map, here: actually, maps are the only things
>> we can discuss about.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Well a fat lot of use maps would be if that remark were true.
I mean to say: maps themselves are "about" something, they too "discuss",
and if maps themselves were only discussions about maps then they'd be very
little use for getting to Rome.
All roads lead to Rome, so we probably won't go wrong there.
But do all roads lead to the truth?
I think not.
Elephant
> From: "Marco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:10:21 +0100
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MD Inside and Outside
>
> elephant,
>
>
>> MARCO:
>>> But this was not our only disagreement. There is another one, and
> it's
>>> about the patternmakers. In your opinion, intellect (language) is
> the
>>> only patternmaker. Again according to my edition of the map, they
> are
>>> four. My map says that when intellect works there are already
>>> "staticities", but it does not mean that those "staticities" come
> first.
>>
>> ELEPHANT:
>> - just to stop you there and say that I do not understand this last
>> sentence. If the "staticities" are there "already", then necessarily
> those
>> staticities "come first" - this is just what the word "already" means.
>> Perhaps you intend something different from what you state.
>
> Sorry my English... I was meaning: "My map says that when intellect
> works there are already "staticities", and that those "staticities"
> are not the very first things as before them there was DQ.
>
>
>> When I say that the intellect comes first, I mean first before objects
> with
>> static quality and first before quality events (the way I understand
> the
>> word "event"). I don't mean that 'intellectualisation' is prior to
> DQ: not
>> at all. (That would be just plain silly).
>
> Of course. You map tells that intellect comes before all the static
> quality.
>
>
>>
>> In one sense of "intellect" by which one might mean intuition of the
> good, I
>> think that the existence of DQ and of this "quality intellect" are
> one, or,
>> alternatively two "intellectualisations" of the same reality.
>>
>> But it's mostly the other sense of "intellect", the sense attached to
>> "reason" and "thought" and such like that we've mostly been taking
> about -
>> that's the intellect that comes first before objects, but second after
> DQ.
>>
>
> Actually, my map tells: fifth, after DQ and something else.
>
>
> I think we can close at this point. In my preface I clearly stated I was
> discussing an intellectual map. So I guess you also are on this field.
> Here it is definitive that we have two different maps in our hands. It's
> not a very big problem, we both are going to Rome. We will meet there.
>
> See ya
>
>
> 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
