Calling all foci.
November (as well as the millennium) is soon closing so this will
be very general.
This month's topic has not been all popular, but this group is
supposed to be the MOQ specialists and capable of handling
difficult and confusing stuff too. So let's regard it as a mental
exercise (that we have handled well) and may now indulge in a
more exciting one.
I think Jaap Karssenberg is the name of the month with Tor
Langballe as a "photo finish" second. Collaborating the two have
arrived at a MOQ answer to the nature-nurture riddle. There are a
few points in Jaap's last post that I hesitate at (see lower down),
but all in all this is good.
Saying so it may sound strange to ask Jaap if he can manage one
last post in which he analyzes the nature-nurture riddle even more
directly, preferable with practical examples Is it possible to apply
Pirsig's SOM-MOQ transformation formulae (inorg.+org.=object.
soc.+intell.=subject) to the problem, or is the n-n a SOM-generated
"platypus" in the first place?
Perhaps Jaap has done nothing BUT analyze this and won't
understand what I ask for, but as he promised to survey my
"adrenalin" example, that may be the test specimen.
My only doubt if you and I misunderstand each other correctly :-) is
when you wrote:
> You're absolutely right, that's why I wrote that SOM and MOQ are equal
> and that MOQ is believed top be better by MOQ-believers. Since a level
> cannot see a higher level it's not possible for the intellectual
> level to say whether MOQ or SOM is a representative for a higher level
> - the edge between evolution and degeneration is small - and that's
> why I use "believe". Of course I say MOQ is higher....etc
When I say that the MOQ is of "higher value" I mean a budding
new 5th level, consequently the two aren't equal; SOM is of
intellect (or the intellect!). You are right that a level cannot see a
level above itself (other that destructive chaos), but as we - the
believers -DO recognize the MOQ it means that we have
trespassed intellect's perimeter.
Or, more correctly, Phaedrus of ZMM was the trespasser. Until he
came along intellect (as subject-object METAPHYSICS) was "all
there is" and it was forbidden to approach intellect's borders. It was
called insanity to question it's validity - and it WAS insanity. I see
Nietszche as one who didn't return from an excursion there. Now,
in year ?? AP (after Pirsig) a small bridgehead is established
beyond intellect.
I still wonder how many it is who really understand the enormity of
declaring the subject-object division invalid. There was a time when
I doubted if this was wise. Not it's tenability, but as above: it looked
like chaos. But, I was hooked and not able to return to the SOM
even if I wanted to. However the SOLAQI brought me great relief.
The S-O division (seen as intellect) is the highest static value and
the quality idea is some movement beyond. The ugly chaos turned
into a higher level.
Not yet established. Our time and our effort can be compared to
the Greek experience (seen as the advent of intellect/SOM) when a
small clique fought for what they saw as the only direction the
future could take to free itself from the social bonds (the Greeks
and the millennia that followed in their steps did not use these
MOQ terms of course). The only way OUR future can free itself
from intellect's bonds is the MOQ.
Wow, this was supposed to be a short.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST