For the MoQ to cause a paradigm shift, it has to a) explain phenomena better than standard existing viewpoints b) be accepted by society (in this case philosophical society) as such c) not be fiction
I added C, and while C isn't necessary, it's a prevalent trend in notable philosophical progress. Other than that, the MoQ seems to fail in respect A, fails utterly in respect B, and fails in respect C. On 12/3/07, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Bo, > > [Bo] > > > > 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. > > [Platt] > > > 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. > > [Bo] > > 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. > > I don't consider the intellect as a "worthless" static level any more than > the other levels. But, the original question was, "What is the role of > intellect in determining what is good?" Based on Pirsig's repeated > warnings > against attempts to define Quality my answer was, "None," As you know, > the > square-one postulate of the MOQ is: "Quality is a direct experience > independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions." (Lila, 5) So in > determining what is good (Quality), intellect plays at best a secondary, > static role, especially subject-object science which couldn't spot a value > > in front of its nose even if the entire structure of it's ideology > depended > on it. > > IMO, as you say. > > Best, > Platt > > 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/ > -- "The only thing that separates us from the animals is...well, the truth is nothing separates us from the animals." 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/
