From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 18:37:56 GMT
Joe and All
5 Feb. you wrote:
> joe: i would like to muse about "the MOQ rearranges EVERYTHING"!
> LILA, An inquiry into Morals, a book written by R. Pirsig, is the
> start of the MOQ. ZMM laid the groundwork by exploring QUALITY, and
> comparing rhetoric and the dialectic. "Rhetoric 2, dialectic 0." A
> pitfall he explored, if a persopn places his knowledge of his
> existence outside the mythos, he is considered insane.
Yes, that's true, but the mythos Phaedrus trespassed was not the
Ancient myth, but the Subject/Object one.
> A part of the mythos he was concerned with was Quality (freedom) and
> definition.
You mean Dynamic/Static? Yes, but this new Myth - his own
Metaphysics - was something utterly vague in the ZMM.
> 'God' was accepted by SOM as a word in the mythos that
> was both Quality and undefined.
In what myth?
> As a teacher in a state-run
> university, a part of the rhetoric he was reluctant to use was: 'God'
> or 'Gods'. There was something special about the word 'God' that made
> it unusable. IMO before MOQ 'God' is an unusable word since SOM
> viewed the apprehension of the existence of God through a 'mystical'
> knowledge.
This contains a lot of great insights, "God" was unsuitable in SOM
for the reason you give ...true. Much could be said here.
> The entomology of the word 'mystic' is from the Greek word meaning 'an
> initiate'. IMO mystical knowledge implies that by training, directing
> my attention to specifics, I learn things I would not ordinarily
> apprehend. The training forces the learner to see new things. "The
> MOQ rearranges EVERYTHING" by preferring a mystical rhetoric to a
> reasonable dialectic. I agree.
Yes by Jove it requires a certain initiation to see that the MOQ is
a new Myth - one that rearranges everything, like SOM (as
intellect) did in its time. Maybe one may say that Society and
Biology did so in their time.
> Bo:
> It requires a little juggling, but the important first step is to see
> that intellect is a static level and as blind to the Quality context
> as the rest of the levels.
> joe: IMO the mythos is known mystically. The training of education
> and ordinary life experiences force me to accept the mythos. I now
> have a basis for my being and my actions.
Yes, but how is the shift to the Quality Myth to come about? As I
see it most all of this discussion group is stuck in the SOM myth.
> IMO "An inquiry into Morals" is outside the mythos. In the MOQ I
> accept the inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual orders not by
> any mystic initiation, but in some other way. The dividing line
> between the orders is Dynamic Quality. I see that "intellect is a
> static level" when speaking of the intellectual order. IMO the MOQ
> accepts that when I apprehend the dividing line between the moral
> orders, I know the Quality of intellect, of social, of organic, of
> inorganic value in a moral hiearchy. I can see the dividing line as
> S/O, but I am not "blind to the Quality context." The questions I
> have: Does limitation equal definition? No! Does value limit
> Quality? Yes!
A deep one this, I'm not sure if I get the gist of it.
> Depending upon how I view evolution from an inorganic order, to an
> organic order, to a social order, to an intellectual order, to
> self-awareness, will determine where I place 'self-awareness'. IMO I
> consider self-awareness' a planetary (the inorganic order) emanation.
> If I travel beyond the universe, my self-awareness apprehends a
> different emanation.
You must have the black belt of complicated style ;-) and I dare
not comment. A journey beyond the universe I haven't
considered yet.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 08 2004 - 18:52:37 GMT