Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 01:37:30 +0100
Donny, Ken and Squad
The LS exchange has now reached proportions that make it difficult
to follow, so I'll have to concentrate on the ones that touche my
field of interest.
Donny has delivered some hefty material lately, he soars high and I
am not always sure where his flights will land, I concentrate on
these passage from the Heidegger post:
> I think we can all imedeatly recognize something a ken to our
> "SOM" in Heiddeger's "Metaphysics." Or (as Bodvar and I, w/ help from
> some others, are pursuing) perhaps his "Metaphysics" is simply the same as
> Intellectual values? Some helpful questions might be: Does the MoQ (the
> philosophy in LILA) match the 4 traits Hiedegger named? Does the
> philosophy outlined in ZMM? After all, the MoQ is still subject to
> intellectual values ( it *is* intellectual values) -- but it's not a SOM.
> That makes it a nice yard stick.
Heidegger's four traits can possibly - with a little goodwill - be
juggled into fitting MOQ's four levels, yet he lacks the overall
DQ-SQ picture so it is no exact match. Also, it's hard not to "be
subject to" Intellectual values, but if one sees - as you do - that
the MOQ is not a SOM (or that the Q-Intellect isn't SOM's "mind")
then one has followed DQ and "transcended" Q-Intellect. (This is
possibly what you are saying when stressing the metaphysics -
thinking transit?)
> In case you're wondering (and you must be by now) where I think
> I'm going w/ all this... What I'm heading towards is an answer to the
> problem I brought up earlier about: If proto-social existance (primatives)
> has more immedeate access to experiencing DQ (which I believe they do)
> then why is IntPoVs a moral advancement? Quality is the *pre*-intelletual
> experience, pre-subject/object. But intellect is based on the Analytic
> knife and S-O logic. It takes us away from DQ. DQ from mythos is eassy;
> DQ from logos may well be impossible.
> At the end of LILA Pheadrus says that metaphysics (in the general,
> not Heideggerian sense) is itself an immoral activity because it is an
> static PoV trying to subsume DQ. He declires "you can't win 'em all" and
> drops it.
Well, ALL Q-levels are immoral dynamically and good statically.
Life is of higher value than Matter and so on upwards. If you say
that the "proto-social" (level?) - of the primitives - had more
easy access to DQ, then (primitive) Life were even better off - not
to speak of Matter!!! No, from the very first static fallout the DQ
was "violated" and only through the break with each successive static
rung was it justified - only to be made into a new static level
again. So, honestly, I don't see that Q-Intellect is taking the
evolution more away from DQ than any other level.
> Well, I think I have the answer, because i think Heiddeger was
> dead-wrong when he said their is no "Post-metaphysical." Because if their
> is a post-metaphysical experience of DQ -- a way to use the intellect's
> S-O logic and still get to DQ's at-one-ment -- that would be a higher
> value experience of DQ than what the "Pre-Metaphysical" primatives and the
> "Non-Metaphysicl" Taoists and Budhists do!
Yes you have! That's what my SOTAQI is all about: Returning with
the insight that one can use the S-O logic seen as the most valuable
part of the Quality set-up yet subordinate to DQ. I think
we have it settled Donny!
Extracts from Ken's reply to Donny's Heidegger letter:
> > Donny wrote:
> > This rock doesn't exist "out there" in the world. It exists --
> > it *really* exists as an abstraction, a token passed around in our
> > conversation. The InOrgPoVs are *only* abstractions -- schema,
> > part of the correct picture of the world (CPOW).
> > > Clark wrote:
> > > With Dr Johnson in mind, if I stub my abstracted toe on the
> > > imaginary rock then I have to cut the toe our of my imaginary
> > > shoe so that I can walk until my imaginary toenail comes off and
> > > a new one replaces it.
Ken. Relax. Don't be led astray here. I think Donny is just testing
the various (SOM) alternatives to demonstrate their impossibility. The
"really out there" and the "only in here" are the two dead ends of S-O
M thinking. Not of the S-O logic ......seen as Q-Intellect! (SOTAQI).
> > Donny wrote:
> > This schema is very practical. It has one big problem. It
> > endorses the idea of the objective, "thing-itself" reality "out
> > there" somewhere. Like: It explains (nicely so!) the existence of
> > a rock as a set of InorgPoVs... but this picture leaves something
> > out: US!! Us -- the subject, imaginatively rojecting this object
> > of the world. S and O arise together out of the Quality Event
> > > Clark wrote:
> > > Donny, US was not around when that rock was formed. You are
> > > projecting the Quality idea from the standpoint of humanity.
> > > Humanity is an eye blink in the history of the universe.
Ken.You are right, but we have to make the obvious observation that
Q_Intellect is a plane "conquered" only by the human race, so
'world-views' came with us. Donny has a point here ......had I
only understood why he starts on 'subjects projecting objects'
SOM sounding stuff. I hope he is just testing to see if reception is
good :-).
NOTA BENE!
An aside to all of LS! Please take the time to edit your
entries so that the number of "hooks" (>) correspond to who wrote
what. The exchange is now so intricate that it is hard to keep track
without having to sort out casual dispensing of this indicator.
Bodvar
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:45 CEST