From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 20:26:14 GMT
Bo:I believe that "objective" and "knowledge" mean the same and
hardly need an explanation. Now to forestall any pointing out from
you that no arbiter of such exist I hasten to say that this is the very
core of the Quality Idea. It has removed the metaphysical 'M' from
the SOM (left it the mere S/O, thus no longer REALITY itself) and
delivered it to the MOQ whose DQ/SQ divide now is how it really is.
But even in the reduced role as intellect (as is my opinion!!!!) its
value is as compelling as the rest of the static hierarchy.
DM: Found this interesting, just a terminology thing:
what status does the SO divide have once it has been
seen as an inadequate metaphysics?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: MD intellectual level
> Matt & Multitude.
>
> On 3 Jan. you wrote:
>
> > > Bo said:
> > > From pre-historic times humans have constructed world-views - it's
> > > the human hallmark - but these we call myths because they were not
> > > based on OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE and this says it all.
>
> > Matt:
> > What constitutes "OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE?"
>
> I believe that "objective" and "knowledge" mean the same and
> hardly need an explanation. Now to forestall any pointing out from
> you that no arbiter of such exist I hasten to say that this is the very
> core of the Quality Idea. It has removed the metaphysical 'M' from
> the SOM (left it the mere S/O, thus no longer REALITY itself) and
> delivered it to the MOQ whose DQ/SQ divide now is how it really is.
> But even in the reduced role as intellect (as is my opinion!!!!) its
> value is as compelling as the rest of the static hierarchy.
>
> > Bo said:
> > We know what philosophers Pirsig refers to in his work and (your)
> > Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger are not among them. And if
> > existentialism can be said to be a parallel or forerunner for the
> > MOQ ...maybe?
>
> > Matt:
> > Pirsig does refer flatteringly to Whitehead in his reference to
> > Whitehead's "dim apprehension" and I thought Pirsig referenced
> > Bergson once (possibly in his line-up of philosophers that other
> > people said he sounded like).
>
> After my computer mishap I lost my searchable LILA so I may not
> be accurate on such matters, but what is sure - as in Dan's LC
> Pirsig quote - is that he doesn't regard the MOQ as an outgrowth of
> any previous philosophy.
>
> > I like to think of existentialism as having some things in common
> > with Pirsig. I have two separate and equally pedestrian accounts in
> my first two essays in the .org Forum.
>
> Noted
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 20:38:15 GMT