LS Re: Hello!


Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:34:42 +0100


Welcome Mark!

Murdock, Mark wrote:
>
...
> Hi, I'm new so please be patient with me!
>
> At the level above Intellectual Value, Dynamic Quality, ideas are
> neither rational or irrational, rather both exist simultaneously like
> a
> quantum particle before observation. Ideas are then crystallized from
> DQ
> and labelled rational or irrational through the process of
> intellectualization. Remember from ZMM that the Quality event
> precedes
> the intellect. Thus intellectualization is always in the past. The
> importance of this particular intellectual value cannot be overstated.
> In it is the wisdom that we can never intellectualize Quality. It
> cannot be defined. It can, however, be felt. It is by this feeling,
> and only this feeling, that we experience the unfolding of "reality."
>
Mark,

This sounds good -- better than some other descriptions. I agree with
this except for the arbitrary split of intellectual value which can be
many other categories than rational/irrational. That split IS SOM-like.

Doug.
> Pirsig was wary of intellectualization for this reason, I believe.
>
> We should be too, when it comes to the goals of growing MoQ.
> Intellectualization is important, but only to bring us to the pool
> that
> is reality, the edge of a metaphysical diving board. At some point we
> must dive free from these rational thoughts and feel. A codification
> of
> MoQ must construct this diving board for its students. It is the pot
> at
> the end of the FAQ rainbow. I favor a broad, loose, fluid FAQ - start
> with "an" answer and leave a portion below it for a "better" answer.
> How do we know if it's better? Not through dialectic arguments, but
> by
> feeling. Need we anyone, Phaedrus, to tell us what is good? MoQ must
> be
> open-ended in this way, lest it die on the vine, strangled by its own
> dogma.
Mark,

This is fresh! Excellent! A better way to see our goal and a better
way to do the FAQ!

Doug.
>
> Lila was a caveat to ZMM. Lila tells us that not all feelings are
> equally good, that morals fall within a hierarchy. Lila was an
> introduction to and recognition of the importance of static qualities,
> not a denunciation of them (as some ZMM readers concluded). Lila was
> itself a reflection, an intellectualization - an important one indeed
> -
> but not capable of standing apart from the broad reality described in
> ZMM. Any attempt to carve Lila from ZMM is illusory. It's SOM with
> different definitions.
Mark,

But MoQ subsumes SOM! It is better than SOM.

Doug.
>
> Like Pirsig, I fear that an MoQ dialectic dual with SOM intellectuals
> can never be "won." We seek the Good, which is not necessarily true.
> We're Sophists, out to better humanity, not chase the ghosts of
> reason.
>
> MoQ does wonders for those attempting to better understand quantum
> physics. I applaud you folks. I'd like to know if there are LS'ers
> interested in threads which explore the original goals of the
> Sophists?
Mark,

Yes, consider us interested!

Doug.
> For example, are the values and morals of capitalism the best we can
> do
> for humanity? Are corporations moral? How can we better understand
> the environmental movement with MoQ? Ozone depletion for example.
> For
> years our society did little about the problem because "not all the
> facts were in." Science was unprepared to rule on it. Yet most of us
> FELT that the hole in the ozone was wrong, didn't we? We should have
> acted from that feeling rather than wait.
>
Mark,

Are sun spots 'wrong?'

Do we KNOW what causes the hole in the ozone layer? If you say 'Yes!'
then HOW do we know? What if the hole in the ozone layer prefers the
precondition sun spots and/or certain rotational galactic positions of
our solar system in the Milky Way?

The human-centricity of human kind generates a SOM arrogance which puts
the SOM thinker at the fulcrum of thought and thus dialectically a
causative agent for selected effects -- like ozone layer holes.

That same SOM arrogance produced a flat Earth, Earth as the center of
the universe, human kind as the only sentient forms in the universe,
etc.

Mtty, Mark,

Doug.
> Anyone resonate with anything I've said?
Mark,

Simply excellent! Nearly total resonance here.

Doug.
>

-- 
" But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only properties located
in external physical objects have reality."

Robert M. Pirsig, page 14 in his paper "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values," presented at the Einstein Meets Magritte conference, Fall 1995.

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST