Re: MD SOLAQI, What's creativity got to do with it?

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Jan 29 2004 - 16:09:35 GMT

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD SOLAQI confirmed?"

    Mark,
    Against my better judgment I will engage your posting.

    Mark 29-01-04: Mati, you are beginning to adopt the idiosyncrasies of Bo. Be
    careful!
    Because of space limitations, allow me to cut chaff?

    I respect Zen Buddhism... Mark 29-01-04: Cut.

    Mati:
    Mark writes:
    The MoQ describes... ...and without a single answer. Mark 29-01-04: Cut.

    Mati:
    >From my perspective SOLAQI only does one very important thing, it nails down
    the static level in terms of intellect.

    Mark 29-01-04: This may be in Bodvar's metaphysics, but not in the MoQ.

    Mati:
    So how does SOLOQI account for creativity, it doesn't!

    Mark 29-01-04: Then Bodvar's metaphysics is useless with regard to exploring
    creativity. However, the MoQ has a great deal to say about creativity.

    Mati:
    Bo commented on this when he wrote,

    "They think about concepts like aesthetics, intuition, intelligence, ..
    things beyond the S/O divide and want Q-intellect defined in such a way
    that it supports all these. Even Pirsig of LC seems to have joined the
    chase.

    But all these things are facets of the dynamical aspect of existence -
    out of which Phaedrus picked "the mother of them all" QUALITY. To a
    lesser or greater extent they all share the same ambiguity that makes
    it possible to construct a metaphysics similar to the MOQ around
    them. This does not diminish P's achievement one iota, his stroke of
    genius was to identify and challenge the SOM, then replace its S/O
    slash with the Dynamic/Static one.

    Mark 29-01-04: But Mati, this is Bo's opinion, and it is an opinion which has
    been shown to be an incorrect interpretation based on ideas not present in
    either ZMM, Lila and SODV ad infinitum.
    However, 'aesthetics, intuition,' are accounted for in the MoQ as coherent
    relationships between static patterns and DQ. Intelligence is this ongoing
    process.

    Mati qotes Bo:
    As the present top level Intellect is our age's REASON and reason
    can neither explain Quality nor its many variants. That's the whole
    point of my insistence upon Q-intellect being S/OL (subject-object
    logic). Intellect can't explain any of these ambiguous yet unavoidable
    phenomena. It can't explain intelligence* in animals without reverting
    to the slanderous "instinct" term, it can't explain our sense of beauty
    ..etc, .but places them all in its subjective box. Not part of reality!"

    Mark 29-01-04: This is not what the MoQ says. This is Bodvar's metaphysics.
    If you wish to know what the MoQ says about beauty, read The edge of chaos
    where you will find relevant supporting quotes from ZMM, Lila and SODV.

    Mark writes: The MoQ... ...static description). Mark 29-01-04: Cut.

    Mati: Acknowledging DQ exists, even as a repertoire and then calling it
    a "Static description of the intellect" doesn't make sense.

    Mark 29-01-04: I do not say this. I say the repertoire is in a relationship
    with DQ. The term DQ is a static word, but it points to
    nothingness/emptiness/that which cannot be conceptualised/unpatterned, etc.

    Mark: When you say... ...severe conceptual wall. Mark 29-01-04: Cut.

    Mati: If you are saying that accepting SOLAQI conceptually as the
    "static" level as the defining factor of intellect, you are right. All
    levels have a severe, conceptual wall. The wall from the inorganic to
    the biological is pretty severe is one example.

    Mark 29-01-04: Thank you for agreeing with me with regard to Bo's
    Metaphysics.
    If you investigate reason, you may discover that it is a matter of aesthetic
    appreciation as to what reason actually is. There is no one reason, there is
    no one truth - not even in mathematics. To define intellect in terms of logic
    or reason disenfranchises peoples and cultures who fall outside the definition
    you have imposed. In a severe case, that may even be almost racist?
    In the MoQ, all levels do not have a severe conceptual wall if you accept DQ
    is always in a relationship with the static repertoire of the level - the
    level is evolving towards DQ and is motivated by DQ. For example, at the level of
    the organic cell, the static aspect of a cell is its protective protein. The
    Dynamic aspect is the delicate DNA. The relationship between these two is vital
    for continued evolution, and the MoQ says that evolution is towards DQ. As DQ
    is unconceptualised, how can an MoQ description of the cell be other than
    unbounded by conceptualisation?

    Mark: When... ...beautiful and ethical process. Mark 29-01-04: Cut.

    Mati: One thing language provided was a capacity to reflect a host of
    values from S/O to DQ/SQ. That is not to say that values come from
    language, but rather language can reflect the values we experience.
    This includes all aspects of life, again from Inorg. to Intellect and
    DQ/SQ. To say intellect is, "creative, Dynamic, beautiful and ethical"
    is inaccurate. I think it would be, more accurate to stay that, "When
    intellect as a SOL static reality is pervaded by the dynamic realities
    of creativity, intuition, aesthetics,etc..., we begin to see the "Code
    of Art" as the 4th dynamic morality."

    Mark 29-01-04: This is Bodvar's metaphysics. The MoQ does not regard
    Intellect as equal to what Bodvar's metaphysics calls the Subject/Object divide. The
    MoQ is far wider than this narrow description.

    Mark: As a teacher Mati... ...all children. Mark 29-01-04: Cut.

    Mati: I am slowing becoming of the opinion that education is the process
    of two realities. First, to establish high quality static values of
    knowledge, with the capacity to recognize them as quality values.
    Second, be true the 4th moral code, which is I believe can be a reality
    with every child. A reality that needs to be fostered by family,
    schools, community. The problem is we are to busy enforcing the 2nd and
    3rd level of moral codes.

    Mati

    Mark 29-01-04: Imposing static intellectual patterns on Dynamic children is
    an evil, and children rebel against them. Bodvar's metaphysics is severely
    static in its conception - i shall leave you to draw your own conclusions Mati.

    All the best,
    Mark

    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 : Thu Jan 29 2004 - 17:17:00 GMT