Re: MD Matt's Critique of the SOL.

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 10:39:31 BST

  • Next message: Michael Hamilton: "MD Clearing up this intellectual mess"

    Sorry Paul, right thread, wrong mail - it was inserted after the Matt
    / Bo exchange ...
    Ian

    On 6/22/05, Paul Turner <paul@turnerbc.co.uk> wrote:
    > Ian,
    >
    > You posted this as a reply to my mail (although didn't address it to me) but
    > I can't see any relevance in your "reply" to what I wrote. So I'll assume
    > you replied to the wrong thing?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Paul
    >
    > --- -----Original Message-----
    > --- From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-
    > --- moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
    > --- Sent: 22 June 2005 07:05
    > --- To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > --- Subject: Re: MD Matt's Critique of the SOL.
    > ---
    > --- Matt / Bo / Scott, et al, two points ....
    > ---
    > --- (1) This is not a beauty contest - I'm not concerned with how original
    > --- Pirsig is or isn't, I'm concerned with whether he spoke sense or not,
    > --- when it comes to reality.
    > ---
    > --- (2) Interesting that whatever language we use or whatever angle we
    > --- approach it - linguistic / epistemological or objective / ontological
    > --- - all the issues still collide in "mind" ... dualist or not ... the
    > --- subject's mind, or ... ? (Scott, you make a lot of points that ring
    > --- true. The fact that Pirsig - and others - got us to focus on the
    > --- triplet event of immediate experience, doesn't automagically remove
    > --- this "quality" entity from the rest of the problem.)
    > ---
    > --- Ian
    > ---
    > --- On 6/21/05, Paul Turner <paul@turnerbc.co.uk> wrote:
    > --- > Bo, Matt
    > --- >
    > --- >
    > --- > --- Matt:
    > --- > --- If I understand your reasoning about the SOL-MoQ, it looks
    > --- something
    > --- > --- like this: SOM used to be the truth of us. We used to exist
    > --- in the
    > --- > --- SOM-Reality. But the creation of the MoQ has made it possible
    > --- to
    > --- > --- move from one
    > --- > --- reality, the SOM-Reality, to another, the Quality-Reality.
    > --- When
    > --- > --- making that
    > --- > --- switch, from SOM-Reality to Quality-Reality, we are literally
    > --- > --- entering a
    > --- > --- new reality. That new reality is the SOL-MoQ. The SOL-MoQ is
    > --- > --- simply
    > --- > --- short-hand for all the machinations we make in our reality,
    > --- the
    > --- > --- Quality-Reality, and the SOL-MoQ is the correct
    > --- > --- interpretation of our new reality.
    > --- >
    > --- > Bo replied:
    > --- > --- I had to indent this because this is just spot on. I could not
    > --- have
    > --- > --- formulated it better myself (in my own language)
    > --- >
    > --- > And....
    > --- >
    > --- > --- We are at the end of our respective tethers now. These last
    > --- > --- questions of yours are answered earlier. But again I must thank
    > --- > --- you for your willingness to explore the SOL to its source, never
    > --- > --- ever before have I seen it laid out so perfectly. What a relief!
    > --- > --- And anyone who hasn't dropped his/her "common sense"
    > --- > --- because Pirsig seemingly has rejected the SOL interpretation will
    > --- > --- see that it is the MOQ.
    > --- >
    > --- > Paul: I don't wish to take anything away from Matt's perspicuous
    > --- writing
    > --- > here but the response from Bo is a good example of one of the big
    > --- > frustrations I have with him. Please see the below, which I recently
    > --- > resent:
    > --- >
    > --- > --------------------------------------------------------
    > --- >
    > --- > From: skutvik@online.no
    > --- > Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 08:13:44 BST
    > --- >
    > --- > 28 Aug [Paul] wrote:
    > --- >
    > --- > > You refer to "inside the MOQ" and a "Quality Universe" as if it were
    > --- > > somewhere other than where we already are, right here, right now,
    > --- all
    > --- > > around and inside. I think your "Metaphysics is Reality" belief is a
    > --- > > major problem.
    > --- >
    > --- > [Bo:]
    > --- > Yes, I do. Existence have this tendency to change in accordance with
    > --- the
    > --- > range of view. Remember the example of a bug inside the sock?
    > --- > After it being turned inside out, reality changed from a smelly
    > --- confined
    > --- > world to one of enormous vistas. It was the same yet changed
    > --- fundamentally.
    > --- >
    > --- > A more real example is the cosmology of the "ancient world" (Social
    > --- > Reality) The "underworld" extended forever downwards and the sky
    > --- forever
    > --- > upwards, then came the Copernican Revolution (Intellectual
    > --- > Reality) when these things were relativized; The same "here, right
    > --- now, all
    > --- > around and inside" yet changed fundamentally. If this important
    > --- phenomenon
    > --- > that Pirsig points to is a "problem" to you ...?
    > --- >
    > --- > > I think your logic goes:
    > --- >
    > --- > I printed this out and brought it with me on a walk to read it in
    > --- portions.
    > --- > Even one's own view looks a little unfamiliar seen through another
    > --- person's
    > --- > eyes ....
    > --- >
    > --- > > "If the MOQ includes "Dynamic Quality"
    > --- > > and Dynamic Quality is outside of static intellectual patterns and
    > --- the
    > --- > > MOQ is reality itself then the MOQ is also outside of static
    > --- > > intellectual patterns"
    > --- >
    > --- > ....but this is as close as it comes!!!
    > --- >
    > --- > > This also explains why you have come up with the SOLAQI argument.
    > --- You
    > --- > > extend the logic above in this way..
    > --- >
    > --- > Exactly!
    > --- >
    > --- > > "and because I can think about the MOQ (which is outside of static
    > --- > > intellectual patterns) then static intellectual patterns cannot be
    > --- > > synonymous with thoughts"
    > --- >
    > --- > Damn! This Is GOOD!
    > --- >
    > --- > > So to keep it all intact, you reduce mind to an era of "subject-
    > --- object
    > --- > > thinking" and create a fifth level
    > --- >
    > --- > Even if I have backed down on the 5th level to a rebel intellectual
    > --- pattern,
    > --- > this is exactly it.
    > --- >
    > --- > > or a "Quality Universe" in which
    > --- > > the MOQ is not "merely a metaphysics" but has replaced SOM as
    > --- "reality
    > --- > > itself", just as you think the intellectual level once replaced the
    > --- > > social level as "reality itself".
    > --- >
    > --- > GREAT!!!
    > --- >
    > --- > > What I think you fail to see is that the metaphysical term "Dynamic
    > --- > > Quality" is a STATIC INTELLECTUAL REFERENCE to reality which is
    > --- > > understood by direct everyday experience WITHOUT THOUGHTS OR WORDS.
    > --- > > When you understand what it refers to you don't actually need the
    > --- word
    > --- > > anymore.
    > --- >
    > --- > Maybe I was dizzy from your perfect understanding of the SOLAQI, but
    > --- when it
    > --- > comes to this (critical) part ...hmmm. You see I'm not able to
    > --- understand
    > --- > that anyone can understand it as well as you do and NOT "love" it ;-)
    > --- >
    > --- > --------------------------------------------------------
    > --- >
    > --- > Now, isn't this almost exactly the same as the conversation Bo and
    > --- Matt are
    > --- > having? But it doesn't stop here, you can go back through the
    > --- archives and
    > --- > see the same thing occurring again and again -- i.e. Bo presents his
    > --- ideas
    > --- > in cryptic, often unfinished (i.e."........."), statements about the
    > --- "true
    > --- > MOQ" and his correspondent-of-the-day gradually pieces together an
    > --- > understanding which is presented in a summation of "the SOL."
    > --- Following its
    > --- > approbation, this summation is then taken by Bo as an ipso facto
    > --- acceptance
    > --- > of the ideas!
    > --- >
    > --- > Nuts.
    > --- >
    > --- > 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
    > --- >
    > --- >
    > ---
    > ---
    > ---
    > --- 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 10:44:50 BST