[Marsha]
> That's the way I see it too. Maybe if Bo's problem
> can be better
> understood, a better way to address it will surface.
I've brought up before to Bo his insistance of
what seems to be an established evolutionary order
that he wants to solidify, which would put him in the
same category as Auguste Comte. Comte came up with an
evolutionary social order as follows: primitive,
agricultural, industrial. Comte said society evolves
in this order. Thus, if a society is primitive then
it is less evolved than an industrial society. What
was difficult, amongst other things, for Comte's
social evolutionary order was how certain societies
could evolve along his idea of social evolution, but
how other societies around the world (most of them),
didn't evolve according to his idea. Also, I'm not
sure who came up with this, but another age system is
the stone age, copper age, and iron age. Bo seems to
be wanting to establish ages to intellect.
Bo seems to want an established evolutionary
order timeline. Thus, once intellect was established
in ancient Greece with the development of S/O, then Bo
finds the need to establish another order/level due to
the emergence of the moq. This is why Bo refers to
all other non-greek S/O orders/levels as the social
age, and before the social age, human beings were in
the biological age. Bo seems to be trying to convey a
message of ages according to humankinds intellect.
Thus, were you, Dan, Steve, and others see the
moq as an intellectual pattern of value where
intellects patterns may change as I'm sure Krimel
might sympathize as neuro-networks in the brain as
changing, Bo wants to keep the intellect as an age and
an established Plato eternal form that can't change,
so, the moq, in Bo's view must be on another level
higher than the greeks intellect. Bo seems to want to
follow a historical timeline.
But... all of what I'm saying above doesn't mean
a thing if Bo doesn't see it this way, and if Bo
disagrees with the above how could I argue with him
for I would hope Bo would be introspective enough to
know where he is coming from better than I do. Maybe
Bo is trying to hold onto his SOL interpretation like
Ham holds onto his essence thesis. It's his, he
professed it for a long time, put a lot of time into
it, and can't give up on it yet, and somehow it must
fit due to so much energy of his was spent on it. I
have no problem with this, and I don't see how anybody
could. This flurry of posts by me only began when Bo
tried to say he knew the moq better than anybody else,
including Pirsig, and then went as far as to say that
I have no clue what the moq is. When I pointed out
that nobody agrees with his SOL, he said that Peter
agrees with his SOL, thus, the only gate into moq
reality is through Bo's SOL and I find that
troublesome.
So, yes, Bo's problem might be better understood,
and a better way to address his problem might come
about, but it would seem laterally drifting is amidst
Bo's SOL - an act of waiting for something better,
which as you, Steve, and Dan G. have pointed out
something better has occurred, it is intellect
understood as a static pattern of value, but Bo would
have to take this next step and realize value and
morals are intellectual, social, etc...
darkened woods of white,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
