Hi Bo No argument with the below points. Simply I'd add that science emerges from the S/O distinction, along with naturalism and secularism, as its value and benefit, largely in practical and political terms, also giving us individual freedoms, taking society to a new flourishing (and also new problems) beyond tradition. The damge of SOM is the M, and MOQ tries to heal this and avoid the M problems of SOM. There is a danger that MOQ could fall back into SOM as Matt K argues it sometimes does, but with care I think it can tread this difficult path of being a metaphysics without the problems of SOM. But in some ways it changes what we mean by metaphysics. No reality/appearance distinction, no quest for certainty.
Agreed Ta David M > Hi David M. > > 10 Dec. you said to me: > >> SOM is the form intellect has developed from and with. >> The S-O distinction intellectually divides experience-reality >> into two. > > Yes, I believe this is our common ground. I showed that Pirsig > saw "knowledge" as what rebelled against social value and > formed the next value level (the S/O aggregate, objective > knowledge/subjective superstition) By more twists and turns > Pirsig makes "knowledge" turn into "science" - exactlys as in > ZAMM where the first scientific attitude is spotted with Aristotle. > >> Via this division we try to understand reality-experience. >> But in the end this division proves flawed. The distinction has split >> qualities in an inconsistent way. > > SOM is flawed metaphysically, but the S/O distinction is the > highest and best static value thanks to its liberation from- and > control of the social level. Look to the cultures stuck there, the > muslim world). The S/O brought the enormous scientific and > social progress that characterizes the Western world. > > But as said metaphysically the SOM is flawed and the equally > enormous progress of the MOQ is to rob it of its "M" and relegate > it to its proper place within MOQ's static hierarchy. In this > capacity it is not flawed at all, no more than the rest of the levels. > >> MOQ re-thinks this distinction and thinks with a new distinction DQ/SQ. >> With DQ/SQ the misleading division between subjectivity and knowledge >> (objective) can be healed. > > Agree!! > >> You sound below as if there is not a problem with objective knowledge >> and as if subjectivity has no knowledge and truth. All this is resolved >> by MOQ (a new intellectual distinction that can shake off much of SOM) > > With the above reservations regarding SOM's role as a > metaphysics (as things really are) and its role as the 4th static > Quality level, we hopefully agree. > > 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/ > 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/
