From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:38:13 BST
Hey Bo,
B
> Good Day Rick.
R
And good day to you as well sir.
> Bo prev.
> > > Here we go again about the map metaphor. Is there a terrain that the
> > > SOM and the MOQ are maps over? In my opinion not, a metaphysics IS
> > > the ultimate reality and we end up in the infinite regress problem
> > > here unless that is heeded.
>
> Rick now:
> > A metaphysics is the ultimate reality? Metaphysics is a description
> > Bo. How can a description be the ultimate reality?
B
> Is this the result of six(?) years of discussing the MOQ? The arch
> somish notion of subjective map-thoughts about the objective reality
> "out there"? No, it comes to a point where the "buck stops", and that
> is what we call metaphysics in the SOM-MOQ sense.
R
You can call me an SOMer and insult my understanding of the MoQ all you'd
like Bo (you're not going to call me a racist next, are you?), but it won't
change the fact that you still haven't answered the question, which was,
"How can a description be the ultimate reality?" Can you answer that
please? Because until you can show it's coherent (in any sense) to think
that the ultimate reality is a description, your restaurant is serving menus
instead of food.
B
> The reality (metaphysics) Phaedrus of ZMM was faced with was SOM
> (which logically will have to become Q-intellect of the MOQ) and at
> that level DQ's interaction is through the human mind or "awareness"
> BECAUSE SOM IS THE MIND/BODY DIVIDE ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Later in the fully worked out MOQ he postulates that the Q-evolution
> STARTED with the static inorganic universe...
R
No Bo. "[The MoQ] simply restates the empiricists' belief that EXPERIENCE
is the starting point of all reality (emphasis added)." Not inorganic
patterns. He says that the idea that the inorganic universe chronologically
precedes the other levels is simply a high quality intellectual pattern
(see letter to A.McWatt, "Among these patterns is the intellectual pattern
that says 'there is an external world of things out there which are
independent of intellectual patterns'. That is one of the highest quality
intellectual patterns there is. And in this highest quality intellectual
pattern, external objects appear historically before intellectual
patterns... But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself comes
before the external world, not after, as is commonly presumed by the
materialist.").
> > R
> > I can't speak for anyone else, but I refuse SOLAQI for the same reason
> > Pirsig does. As I understand it, it makes the 4th level far too
> > narrow to agree with my experience and inexplicably squeezes the MoQ
> > itself (another description) out of the 4th level.
B
> Sorry for sounding pompous, but Pirsig said at first that he decided
> against participating because that would make all listen to the great
> author. Now that he HAS appeared, he will be pleased by us pointing
> to "bugs".
R
Frankly, I couldn't care less if pointing to bugs pleases him or not. I
have always done it (and plan to continue doing it) regardless of how he
feels about it. I'm sure he would do the same (imagine a Phaedrus who
wouldn't raise his hand in class because he was afraid of hurting the
chairman's feelings...ugh). And I hope *that* doesn't pompous ;-)
B
Regarding the S/OL-intellect being too narrow. Exactly for
> the reason of NOT being able to contain DQ (and its many lesser off-
> shoots - Aesthetics for example) the 4th. static level (repeat STATIC)
> must be cut down to size.
R
It 'must be cut down to size' because it's 'too narrow'? That's a new one
on me Bo. Has it occurred to you yet that if you just drop the 'Q-Intellect
= SOL' the 4th level will no longer be "too narrow"?
> Bo:
> > > And the annotating Pirsig hasn't helped much. For example by first
> > > saying this....<snip>
> > R
> > Read it again Bo. He said that the greatest danger was trying to
> > encase VALUES and declare them to be either objects or thoughts.
> > Saying the MoQ is a thought doesn't contradict this because "the MoQ"
> > isn't *synonymous* with "Values".
B
> No one agrees more than me with the the first part, but the MOQ is
> the reality where values play the primary role so saying that the MOQ
> is just another THOUGHT (which follows from defining intellect as
> thinking) ???????????
R
Well that's your problem right there Bo. Just because Values play a primary
role in the MoQ doesn't mean the MoQ=Values. This would be like reasoning
that since your heart plays a primary role in your body, your body = your
heart; Or that since an engine plays a primary role in a motorcycle, a
motorcycle = an engine. The MoQ is not identical with the values which it
purports to describe.
B
> You also try to imply that the metaphysics the MOQ replaces - SOM -
> is about values, but in it values are some subjective frills. It's AFTER
> the MOQ is accepted that SOM may be seen as a values description.
R
Did I imply that? Where?
> > The MoQ (just like everything else)
> > is a *species* of value. It's a static, intellectual, pattern of
> > value.
B
> I think you are in some logical "black hole" here.
R
Okay... But don't just say that, show me how!!!! I don't see anything
'infinitely regressive' about the notion of a metaphysics that includes
itself among the contents of reality. It's no more 'regressive' than the
notion of a man writing a history which includes details of his own life
(autobiography).
B
I am totally devoted to the MOQ, but of course
> dismayed if it sounds like I'm out "to make a name".
R
You are totally devoted to YOUR MoQ. But don't be dismayed, the 'making a
name' comment was strictly aimed at Pirsig (and I didn't mean anything bad
by it, just a statement of fact), I don't think you're out for your own
glory or trying get famous or anything silly like that. I just don't agree
with SOLAQI. That's all.
take care
rick
When you meet someone better than yourself, turn your thoughts to becoming
his equal. When you meet someone not as good as you are, look within and
examine your own self. - Confucius
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 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:44:50 BST