Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:18:59 +0100
Hi Bo and TLS!
See comments below -
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
...
>
> In the quoted pasage Doug says:" Sience assumes objectivity, that an
> object may be isolated...etc", but it also assumes a subject observing
> things and events. If the SOM-as-Intellect connection is made things
> fall in place. Humans focus (mostly) at the Intellectual level and
> (seen as SOM) it's no wonder we can't avoid the subjects and object.
> the division is Intellect.
Bo,
I am going to just blurt this out and see what happens. This is my
impulse (without heavy thought) response to your words.
To me, you show here THE problem with SAIOM. To quote from your
paragraph above, "...it also assumes A subject observing [isolated,
separable] things and events." I emphasized the article 'A.' A subject
is just another isolated, separable thing in classical SOM science. And
worse, classical SOM science denigrates subjects as unverifiable and
unclassifiable value.
SOM may not be the intellect of MoQ because it always separates and
isolates SOM things (MoQ SPoVs). (See note.)
SOM may be an intellectual tool in the MoQ intellectual toolbox, but not
the whole toolbox.
MoQ does not "...assume A [separate, isolated] subject..." It assumes
ALL SPoVs in complementary interrelationships with DQ and with all other
SPoVs in DQ. (Sorry for the repetition/tautology of prior posts.)
Again, this is how I see it. If we make SOM the intellect of MoQ, we
are back in SOM. Don't go there. This is SOM attempting to survive,
and we see its tack again as low value via its forewarned means:
deception.
Also, I see this as a test of the MoQ. Consider it a major test! If
MoQ cannot resolve this unambiguously for all, then is it a good
metaphysics for all?
Bo, you, in my opinion, have given MoQ its largest challenge to date.
Thank you for this potent MoQ Test worthy of both you and Pirsig.
I hope we can place this in the annals of TLS as 'MoQ Test 1 - SAIOM.'
I am enjoying this immensely!
Mtty Bo and TLS,
Doug Renselle.
Note: And MoQites must develop the skills to move readily twixt MoQ and
SOM just as we must move readily twixt the intellect (more SQ proximate)
and meditation (more DQ proximate).
>
> But this is not reintroducing SOM. It is degrading it from staus as
> reality itself to another MOQ value "dimension". A windfall value is
> that it once and for all defines the Intellectual level (I have the
> impression that we gave it up). SOM is safe under MOQ's greater
> unbrella, and needn't be fought off as an enemy (while we still use
> its terms). Remember the slash-and-burn of the competing
> anthropological theories in LILA? This prevents MOQ from doing away
> with SOM, it becomes a prominent, but "dearmed" part of the MOQ.
>
> Enough for now. I'll return to Doug's, Anthony's and Hugo's responses
> in separate posts.
>
> Bo
>
> PS. There was a message from you this morning that reviews the
> SAIOM idea, I'll have to study it a little more before
> commenting.
>
-- The complementary view of truth is many truths which are contextual, and by being contextual they leave room for the good to rule. It is not objectivism, which has no place for the good, and it is not relativism, which has no place for truth.By Hugo Fjelsted Alroe in his email to The Lila Squad on 11 March 1998, 17:44 titled, "LS Re: Rambling on intellect and life."
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST