Hi Platt On 2 Dec. you wrote:
> > When your premises in addition (to misunderstaning the 4th. level) > > is that the static hierarchy is "dogmatic and meaningless" no > > wonder. But listen: The idea of God is also the idea of Zews or any > > other deity - as is that of the moon and stars as deities - and in a > > MOQ context this is social value (for a value it is) but compared to > > it intellect is a higher value and deems the idea of god(s) to be > > superstition. This it does because intellect is a blind to being a > > value level (as the rest of the levels are) only from the MOQ the > > value context is seen. > Good point about seeing the world in the MOQ "context" instead of > through the usual subject/object lens. "Intellect is blind to being a > value level" sums up the problem beautifully. Maybe some here who > might better relate to the idea that the MOQ is a whole new "paradigm" > instead of just another view resting on conventional assumptions. > "Paradigm" appeals to fans of Thomas Kuhn's philosophy. Glad you see this point, I had the impression that you saw the intellectual level as "worthless", but what I've tried to convey is that the subject/object distinction as SOM (a world view where the said distinction is reality's ground) creates the worthlessness, the isolated subject facing an indifferent world, while the S/O as a (mere) static good can be the highest and best, yet subordinate to MOQ's DQ/SQ. Your recognizing this as a paradigm shift is also most apt, that's what it is. Perhaps even a greater one than Kuhn's original model. The MOQ itself is no level as such, but merely the said "alta vista" from where the Quality context - including intellect as a static level - is seen. IMO Bo Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
