Dear Squad,
In view of all the excitement around here, I think I picked a good month to
join the Squad (Or MOQ Focus) The conversation is wonderful and I feel like I
just took my first step into a larger world. Indeed, I am still just learning
to walk around here.
Earlier this month, I answered only part of our original question by saying
", "Yes" it was the emergence and birth of SOM.
The part of the question that I answered was of course the simpler part,
which stated:
"what is it that was described in the last part of ZMM (the Greeks).
Is it the emergence of the subject-object metaphysics,?"
I totally left out or rather did not want to venture beyond my
comprehension of the more difficult part of the question, which states:
"Seen in the light of the MOQ, {was this} the "coming of age" of the
Intellectual level or ...?"
It seems that right from the beginning of the month, there was difficulty
between all of us trying to put our fingers on what the MOQ considers (or
maybe I should say what we considerÖ) the "intellectual level" to be. And
this seems to have a "balloon effect" into a full-fledged grasping match. I
can't help but to see the similarity of our discussion in comparing it to
Pheadrus's own questions about scientific hypothesis as an entity itself. To
which he coined a humorous law that stated: "The number of rational
hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite". He also
states, " Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal
quantitative entity that could be studied like any thing else". (See ZMM
pages 98-102)
I realize we are not discussing a scientific hypothesis, but it also seems
that our different viewpoints can also branch out into an infinite number.
This seems to be possible no matter how simple the question.
I have tried to follow the discussion as best my ability and time will
allow. And in my readings of our discussion I must say that I see much more
agreement than disagreement. It seems to me that in most of the debate, the
differences in the answers are due to an appeal of personal perspective.
Although Dennis and Bo have different views and therefore various answers, I
strangely have an instinctive feeling (do instincts even have a place in this
forum?) that they are describing the same reality of the intellectual level
from different perspectives.
Dennis, You definitely appeal to my mystic side.
Bo, You appeal to the "wisdom thinker" part of me.
Roger, I think that you were definitely the bridge between Bo and Dennis in
this discussion. And you were the one that helped me constantly return to the
instinctive feeling that although the answers were different, the end (scene)
was the same, but again only from different perspectives.
Maybe I'm just an optimist or maybe I'm just not on solid ground yet, but I
really do see a lot of agreement with clear but different views of the scene.
I should quote the areas of the discussion that support my view of agreement
between differences. But that would just "balloon it" out farther and would
become very cumbersome.
Here are a few quotes from the discussion that also subtlety state that all
is "perspective reality".
<< No Perfect Metaphysics (ie Something is always left out when attempting a
description)>>
<< A metaphysics is a metaphysics, and the method
is similar! Pirsig uses Quality, but he could also use "Substance", or..
"XYZ" to mean Reality. The real difference is in point 6, TRUTH vs GOOD.
Sophists (or, better, what we can say about them) were searching for good,
but not in the same way of Pirsig. The good of Pirsig is only in part
relative: we can't define DQ, so we can't change it by rhetoric.>>
<< The KOAN of MOQ: Quality is undefinable; but we must define it.****>>
And there are moreÖ
Now Finally, I must answer the latter part of the original question (or risk
being a "peacemaker with no backbone" And soÖ
"Seen in the light of the MOQ, {was this} the "coming of age" of the
Intellectual level or ...?"
"Yes"! I must agree with my "wisdom thinker" friend, Bo. After some
reflection, I feel that he has come closet to answering the original
question; in "Phaedrus of LILA" terms and vocabulary. ("Which is in the light
of the MOQ") Although I still must reiterate that Dennis and all other views
are not by default, "wrong". I find much in them that surpass me, and that I
also find very enlightening.
This is only one of Bo's points that sides me with him.
<< Bo:
As Intellect took over evolution's baton IT became ALL THERE IS (SOM)
and Society was stripped of all honours and hardly tolerated (Ref.
LILA about Intellect's contempt for Society).
And now the strength of the SOM=Intellect idea shows. As you point out
if the MENTAL/MIND image of Intellect is maintained where various
metaphysics reside there is no way forward. Nothing can surpass such a
value level! But the main MOQ tenet is that DQ never rests and will
try to break loose from its latest static latch, and use it for its
own purpose: as its own servant/material. It is fully possible
to break loose from the SOM-Intellect; the subject/object metaphysics
is then stripped of its ALL THERE IS epaulettes and degraded into
subject/object logic or SO-intelligence: a high value but not
REALITY itself!>>
Although I did have a problem with the word "logic" in Bo's argument, I came
to see this as minor. (And, I still see Dennis's answer hidden in the details)
Peace to all !
Todd
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:53 GMT