Scott ....and Horse!
Should we try just to write "ordinary" letters? I have the impression that
reproducing what has been previously said (and it coming out a mess in the
other person's mail program)* is off-putting. However, you have spent some
time on my my SOL interpretation and I like that, besides you have read a lot
and are familiar with most of the current trends in philosophy and science -
more than I can boast of, after Pirsig I sort of "dropped out".
*) HORSE.
Isn't there a ban against "rich text" and such? It seems like italics, colours and
bold letters have entered some messages. Also, I wish we could agree on a
standard line length in the mail programs - even a standard program - if so the
reproduced parts could possibly come through in their original form.
(continuing our conversation..)
I said that consciousness/awareness are much inflated terms, a kind of God's
eye view of reality, and that these (SOM's) mind-derivatives prevent an
understanding of the MOQ. Its intellectual level becomes the "conscious
observer" of reality, while intellect properly understood (by me:) is the value of
the observer/reality DIVIDE. As said this sounds like picking nits, but it makes
for an universe of difference.
You said you disagreed because you thought there is value in such concepts
and continued ...."I see the potential for poisoning, but I think if one is to do
metaphysics, one can't avoid the words. One might have to bend over
backwards, like Franklin Merrell-Wolff did by naming his book "The Philosophy
of Consciousness-Without-an-Object".
No, the words cannot be avoided and yes, the value of awareness is
enormous, but it must be seen as the whole mind/matter (subject-different-
from-object) aggregate and I desperately want to save this value by making it
the intellectual level, but - as said - many reintroduce the SOM by only heeding
the subject half. The S/O is the greatest value there is, but if this value isn't
preserved as intellectual value and people think that it (intellect) can change to
non-SOM the MOQ becomes just another new-age mumbo-jumbo and Pirsig
has failed monumentally ....and your charge of "vapidity" becomes only too true.
Naturally I am frustrated by the Wilber campaign that's going on. The reason
that John Beasley likes W. is obvious - he never had a clue what the MOQ is
about - but that DMB has taken the bait (and compares notes with Gary of how
to align Pirsig's and Wilber) saddens me. Wilber's "spirituality" is poison to the
MOQ.
And, no, I have no intention of leaving out anything from experience - least of all
the aware/unaware separation - rather relegate it to the intellectual level, and
postulating that the "Quality Idea" is something beyond intellect, which solves
everything.
....in my opinion.
Bo
PS
You said:
> Except that there is the incompatibility between QM and General
> Relativity, so something will change. Of course, Aspect's experiments
> won't be lost, so whatever might come up as a successor to QM will
> have to be at least as "irrational" (to SOM that is).
Wow, the Aspect Experiment! There is incompatibility between General
Relativity and Newtonian Physics, and very much between QM and NP, but
between QM and GR? Those two hardly share ANY ground ...in my limited
knowledge, please expand on that.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST