Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:46:11 +0100
Tue, 12 Aug 2098 19:35:02 -0500
Ken Clark wrote:
>> The part I am confused about is where you said "best dealt with by
> > ordinary sensibility"
> > Are you saying that there is a part of our "sensibility" that is outside
> > the scope of the MOQ.
> > My understanding is that each of us is embedded in the operation of the
> > MOQ and do not have the option of moving in and out of it at will. Will you
> > explain this statement to me. There appears to be something that I do not
> > understand. Ken
Ken and Squad.
Yes we are embedded in the operation of the MOQ (or perhaps:
embedded in Quality).
What made me say the things you cite is the SOTAQI idea (it has
brought me so much peace of mind). It says that the MOQ has
subsumed SOM in the way that subject-object thinking (drop the 'M')
is its own Intellectual level. Consequently, while the MOQ takes care
of the great overall picture, its top static level may well serve for
less demanding purposes.
To recapitulate: The most all-embracing physical theory is General
Relativity, it has subsumed Classical physics, but the GR is far too
general/accurate to be used for ordinary purposes, Newton's laws are
perfectly suited for calculating heavenly motions (but cannot account
for events inside black holes for instance). Likewise: it is
unnecessary to apply the MOQ to whether one should stay with one's
wife or husband. "Ordinary" (subject-object) ethics will do. You do
not leave Quality by doing so if - nota bene - you consciously decide
to apply a subset within the MOQ - and don't reverts to
subject-object METAPHYSICS, i.e forgets the overall MOQ picture.
That's the way physicists use Relativity and Classical physics. They
know that relativism underlie all phenomenons, but it can be ignored
in certain contexts (NB! when switching between the two the
Lorentz transformation must be applied).
The SOTAQI is a MOQ/SOM transformation and once Maggie has made the
MOQ standard in US education - and Europe comes dawdling
after - we need not (in Pirsig's words) "solve a metaphysical
argument at the end of each sentence (It's cumbersome to start
with the DQ/SQ split; the various levels etc.) every schoolchild will
know the great picture.
This is the way I see it. Any clearer?
Bodvar
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:38 CEST