From: Mati Palm-Leis (mpalm@merr.com)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 16:49:04 GMT
Paul,
Giving up MD, is like quitting smoking. :-)
Paul:
Sadly, Mati seems to be doing exactly what I am suggesting we stop doing
- confusing the ontological sense of subjective with the epistemological
sense - and then throwing in a "SOMist!" accusation for good measure :-)
Mati: As mentioned before, my background in philosophy is weak, so I a
prone to eventually talk about something that won't make sense against
the greater discussion about MOQ and philosophy. But I was completely
drawn to MOQ as a philosophical and metaphysical paradigm. It makes
sense. Finally I can read some other philosophers and understand the
strengths and weaknesses of their arguments against the backdrop of MOQ.
MOQ is that good. :-) I am not trying to "peddle" Bo's idea, but both
rationally and intuitively it nails the intellectual value down as a
static value. SOLAQI is that good. :-)
So what comes first the ontological or the epistemological discussion? I
say the ontological. Actually it would be metaphysical, ontological, and
then epistemological. MOQ works superbly as a metaphysical reality, and
transcends nicely into the ontological, and now we are struggling with
the epistemological. Hmmm, why is that. My guess is that we are
struggling with this because we are struggling with nailing down
intellect value patterns because as long as Intellect is ambiguous as an
intellectual value so will be epistemological discussion. Just like when
Pirsig fine tuned his motorcycle he would break down what values and
through a process of deduction to find where problem is. Perhaps
naively I feel it can work in this discussion as well. Metaphysically,
MOQ in the discussion, as a whole, runs pretty smoothly (and
dynamically) as it addresses the level of reality starting at the
inorganic and biological. As we climb higher in the evolution of values
the social reality seems to struggle somewhat but generally seems ok but
when we get into the higher altitude of intellect it run but there is a
lot of miss firing. :-) (Sorry for all the analogies, it is just the way
I think.)
Not to pull a "Bo" move :) but you wrote to Poot: "This would make the
MOQ the same as idealism. I think that's a bad move. I think it's best
to keep subjects and objects as evolutionary levels within static
quality." Making this statement is clearly an intellectual value. Not
social or biological or even inorganic. You clearly saw what Poot's
comment wouldn't work.
When you wrote:
>If the terms objective and subjective, with respect to ideas, methods
>and knowledge, were replaced with high quality and low quality, I
think there would be less confusion.
In the same vain it won't work because we would have to "subjectively"
decide what quality is high and low. How would you decide if water is a
low quality value. Water is simply inorganic. To decide whether it is
high or low is a subjective move. Epistemologically is it fatal move?
Only in that it would create more questions that it would answer like
SOM.
As a final thought, I thought about Pirsig comment that philosophy
shouldn't be so complicated that a child can't understand. (I lent my
last copy of LILA out so I can't give you exact passage.) I think of a
personal childhood memory walking with my mother on the sidewalk in
downtown Chicago. It in the early 1970's and I was 5 or 6. I remember
looking at the tall buildings and for what ever reason the word "modern"
came to mind. There was of a lot talk about what was "modern" in those
days with my parents and their friends. My thoughts are still clear
today as it was then, that those skyscraper buildings like "John
Hancock" building were "modern" in my mind and I was right. If you
would have asked me what is modern was, I wouldn't really have been able
to articulate it. If you would have asked me what intellect was I would
have given you a funny look. But looking back modern in those days was
about a lot of things. It was about a host of many values, objective and
subjective as well as dynamic, and as a kid I would have understood
that, not in those terms but could have understood it. That was
probably the first "Intellectual" thought I can remember. I like Bo use
of the world, "hallmark" of SOLAQI relation to intellect. "Modern"
culturally today is a passé term for obvious reasons. But then when
people talked about what was modern I knew exactly what they were
talking about, it wasn't complicated, it was part of life. As a 5 or 6
year that was some pretty powerful stuff. A personal "hallmark" moment
indeed.
This has got to be my last post. Hey anyone have a light? ;-)
Mati
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 : Sat Feb 14 2004 - 17:32:22 GMT