RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed?

From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 10:18:39 GMT

  • Next message: Jordi Soldevila: "MD a small comprehension doubt"

    Hello Bo

    Bo said:
    I see that a lot of arguments has arrived in the meantime, but I don't
    have your automatic writing ability.

    Paul:
    ?

    Bo said:
    In [Pirsig's] letter he speaks of the Orientals having developed (AN)
    intellect independently of the Greeks. It can't well be that they
    developed an ability to "manipulate symbols"

    Paul:
    Why not? Do you have an argument to support that or are you just relying
    on your own authority?

    Bo said:
    I'm afraid that to many Q-intellect is the "mind" of the MOQ and
    degrading it is sinful.

    Paul:
    Is there an argument in here somewhere? What on earth is "Q-intellect"?

    Bo said:
    As societies come the simplest are the most stable while the complex
    ones will collapse more easily, but from the Quality view the latter are
    the best because they are necessary to support the intellectual
    development. A nomadic tribe could not have brought forward the
    intellectual level, the Greek city state was necessary.

    Paul:
    So you agree that some societies are better than others - which is what
    I said. Therefore, there is a hierarchy within levels - which is what I
    said.

    Bo said:
    "Many other (non-SOM) intellectual patterns". Give me ONE example.

    Paul:
    William James.

    Bo said:
    Mathematics got its "profile" with the Greeks and SOM as part of their
    search for the Immortal Principle (number mysticism).

    Paul:
    There are no subjects or objects in mathematics.

    Searching for truth is only "SOM" when it subordinates Dynamic Quality
    (which it does not acknowledge) to static intellectual quality i.e. the
    undefined good to the static true i.e. when you think your truth can
    correspond to a fundamental reality.

    By the way, despite my request for a clarification some time ago, I
    still find that your use of "SOM" is very vague and it makes your
    arguments very slippery. What exactly do *you* mean by SOM?
     
    Bo said:
    What is NOT "a species of good" in the MOQ?

    Paul:
    Nothing, exactly. Do you not see the significance of making truth
    subordinate to, and a subset of value?

    Bo said:
    Then Intellect is simply "thinking"? How this is different from SOM I
    have trouble seeing, and as in SOM's idealist view, everything is mind
    ......everything is intellectual patterns ... intellect goes the way
    down ...all levels being "intellectual" ...are a few samples of SOM
    under a thin MOQ glaze.

    Paul:
    The MOQ says that everything is immediately experienced value
    manifesting into patterns of value. To organise and analyze patterns of
    value, distinctions are created, when those distinctions are organised
    into hierarchies, categories and so on, intellectual patterns of value
    are created. Among those distinctions is one between subject and object
    (translated by the MOQ into social-intellectual patterns and
    inorganic-biological patterns). SOM starts with the subject and object
    and tries to explain the experience that the MOQ starts with. Idealism
    starts with subject (mind). Materialism starts with object (matter).

    The MOQ is different to idealism because a) the fundamental reality of
    the MOQ is value (experience) and not mind, and b) because mind is
    created by value (experience), whereas in idealism value (experience) is
    created by mind.

    I think your statement above should read:

    Everything [experienced] is [distinguished into different types of
    patterns by] mind ......everything [that the MOQ describes as static
    quality] is [defined by] intellectual patterns ... [the distinctions
    made by] intellect go all the way down ...all [construction of] levels
    being "[static] intellectual [quality]" ...are a few samples of [the way
    the MOQ sees intellectual patterns emerging from pure value and not from
    a pre-existing subject, unlike] SOM [and is essential to grasp for
    anyone who wants to] under[stand the MOQ instead of m]a[king] thin
    [arguments about the] MOQ [being a fifth level which makes my eyes]
    glaze [over].

    :-)

    Regards

    Paul

    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 Jan 19 2004 - 10:18:29 GMT