Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 20 May 1998 04:12:36 +0100
Mon, 18 May 1998 15:50:57 +0000
Theo Schramm <theoschramm@hotmail.com>
wrote:
snip....snip........
> The interesting thing (as Bo rightly points out) is where that essence
> is cut at the next stage and this is surely what we should be
> addressing rather than attempting to paint everybody else as the enemy.
> They are not. Indeed, on this fundamental point, many if not most are on
> our side. If we explain SOM properly as A OR NOT A then we already have
> a huge number of friends ready to listen to the substantive aspects of
> the MOQ and not giving us odd looks. If we start rambling on about
> mind/matter, good/evil, nature/nurture etc, then we are lost. The MOQ
> cannot be allowed to become the eccentric and faintly amusing mutterings
> of academic outcasts and the pseudo-mystical tendency. It is vital that
> we think clearly, positively and
> knowledgeably.
Theo.
Welcome to the Quality discussion. Yes, we have been up many
blind alleys, and painted ourselves into a lot of corners and need a
fresh view now and then. That the MOQ is a monism - philosophically -
is perhaps right, its first dip into the undifferentiated ocean
is "Static Value", while the SOM makes a great show of not have
dipped at all. Subjective-Objective was the way reality was made from
the beginning!!!!!
> I think Diana has here given a very good definition which is almost
> identical to Horse's more concise "A OR NOT A." I suggest using the
> former prefaced by the later and functioning as an explanation of the
> initial premise of A OR NOT A.
Yes, I buy Diana's definition, but am a little reluctant re. Horse's
minimalistic 'A OR NOT A' which only says that this thing over
here is different from the one over there, but does NOT indicate that
one phenomenon is in a compartment totally different from the other.
> We should be aware that in doing this we are not in any way in conflict
> with materialism or idealism on this fundamental point and further,
> that this agreement is not to be feared, but is instead a declaration
> of kinship and a foundation for further progress.
Theo, I smell danger here. If the Quality idea isn't in conflict with
f.ex. materialism and/or idealism my understanding of Pirsig's
teachings must be revised completely. I fear this is SOM trying to
get the MOQ inside its own territory where it can tear it to pieces
by dialectic method (no personal accusation please). On the other
hand, if you buy my assertion that the SOM is the Q-Intellect; the
highest evolutionary rung - well, then I accept your advice
unconditionally.
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 - 16:43:15 CEST