Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:22:30 +0100
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:28:00 -0500
Doug Renselle <renselle@on-net.net>
wrote: .
> 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.
> 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.)
Doug!
Yes I agree. That is the "nature" of subject/object
metaphysics, but as Intellect it is no longer a "metaphysics" but
have to toe the line of the MOQ.
> SOM may be an intellectual tool in the MoQ intellectual toolbox, but not
> the whole toolbox.
I do not see it as the whole toolbox - it is the best tool, but the
box is all the static value patterns collectively, while the reality
that the box is in is Dynamic Quality.
> 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.
If we believe that subject/object division is REALITY, then we are
deceived. So we are if we are captured by the social static value and
let the group decide, or by Biology and become drug addicts or even
by Inorganic value and commit suicide (these are silly
generalities, but..).
> 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?
D'accord!
> 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.'
Doug, you are generous, from my initial accusation of
you reforming the MOQ I would have expect a retort :-) , but at
least we see our respective positions. I don't want any fraction
forming over this issue, but will probably refer to it whenever I see
it demonstrated.
> I am enjoying this immensely!
So do I. Almost too much. I am supposed to paint too. Well,
it's possible to paint and think simultaneously.
> 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).
Remember the "transformation" difficulties!!. I feel that the SAIOM
is the transformation we have been looking for. But let this simmer
for a while. Good luck with the Loyola presentation.
Bo
-- 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