From: Mr. Spears (dspears@toucansurf.net)
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 02:10:14 BST
On 15 Oct 2005, at 17:37, Mr. Spears wrote:
> the inorganic cant "submit".
>
> i'm sorry to be so blunt.
> On 13 Oct 2005, at 09:32, skutvik@online.no wrote:
>
>> David H.
>>
>> 12 Oct. you wrote:
>>
>>> Mark said: (Mike)
>>
>>>> Just as the inorganic level submits to a higher purpose by allowing
>>>> exceptions to the static law of entropy, just as the biological
>>>> level submits to a higher purpose by allowing exceptions to the
>>>> static law of "might makes right", just as the social level submits
>>>> to a higher purpose by allowing exceptions to the static law of
>>>> authority, so the logical level submits to a higher purpose by
>>>> allowing exceptions to the static law of *definition*. The pattern
>>>> is clear to see, is it not? So why shouldn't the MOQ stand above the
>>>> fourth level?
>>
>>> Mark and Bo,
>>
>>> Why shouldn't it? Because it doesn't. It's not permanent and
>>> non-changing, the MOQ does change. You've just changed it. See how
>>> it
>>> changes?
>>
>> I don't know how Mike sees the MOQ (diagram) after the 4th
>> level is renamed (?) and the MOQ is moved out of it.
>>
>>>> Bo continued:
>>
>>>> Now, I don't postulate a 5th. level, the MOQ's intellectual
>>>> framework is intellectual and will remain so (by the same token as
>>>> biology's building block (carbon) remains inorganic, but it has
>>>> formed a Quality reality of which intellect is a sub-set. I still
>>>> search for the ultimate formulation here.
>>
>>> I've got 'the ultimate formulation' for you. Quality. Quality just
>>> like reality has this unique, one of a kind, perfect for any
>>> metaphysics, ability where it can be both ultimate and changing at
>>> the
>>> same time. Ultimate, to me is just another description of quality.
>>> The best description we have at any one time is the ultimate
>>> description. Of course like quality, the ultimate can always be
>>> replaced by something better. Who's not to like this?
>>
>> First David, do you see and eventually approve of my
>> metaphysical exercise here? Postulating the lesser "moq" (its
>> "intellectual" framework) as remaining intellectual (so that they
>> who ask where it is are satisfied) while the greater MOQ is the
>> Quality Reality we live in.
>>
>> I think Quality is fine, the reason for Pirsig choosing it as
>> reality's
>> ground you demonstrate perfectly: Whatever one may think is the
>> ultimate, something BETTER can always be imagined. However,
>> I was more looking for the ultimate way of expressing the above
>> trick of eating the cake and keeping it.
>>
>> What do you say.
>>
>> Bo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>> Mail Archives:
>> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>> Nov '02 Onward -
>> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>>
>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 17 2005 - 11:11:42 BST