Chris,
Hello Chris! Welcome to the forum!
I for one can be very much against any s's and
o's (s/o; som, etc...). There is a comment by Pirsig
in which the 'baby can't be thrown out with the
bathwater', which means one doesn't want to throw out
the intellectual patterns of old (SOM), for those
patterns have latched the intellectual level to an
understanding of the moq. Pirsig intellectually grew
in a som culture, and realized the moq. Yet, what I
find most helpful is to NOT try to find a way to keep
s/o patterns and to NOT find out how those s/o
patterns fit in with the moq. I disagree with these
efforts. The moq, intellectually, is stating how
events REALLY are. It's the best analogy thus far. I
don't think 'the baby is thrown out with the
bathwater' at all. The moq is an intellectual change.
And with this change, the moq is boldly stating that
this is the way the world has been all along. People
have been experiencing value and morals. The moq is a
wake-up call, if you will.
Efforts to find links with s/o or som take away
from understanding what the moq is and how the moq is
realized intellectually. How does realizing the moq
change not only the intellectual level, but also the
social, biological, and inorganic levels? What Pirsig
realized with the moq is an operation, a process if
you will, of how events really are. Therefore the moq
isn't saying there was this s/o metaphysics and people
used to know the world or people do know the world
with a s/o metaphysics. The moq is stating that
people have been and are REALLY experiencing
(intellectually, socially, etc...) this world as
quality. To continue to try to perceive quality with
an s/o perspective is a degeneration and ignores an
aspect of the world that has been here all along.
Dynamic quality is primary reality and
pre-intellectual. The moq is a static intellectual
pattern of this primary reality that realizes other
static patterns, namely, social, biological, and
inorganic. With this realization (this intellectual
pattern) the world is perceived as it really is, which
is quality. Thus, quality is realized to be
everywhere, not just intellectually.
Thanks.
woods,
SA
[Chris]
> Hello everybody, Chris from Sweden here.
> This is my first time posting on this list, so bare
> with me if this repeats old points. I have, as I'm
> sure most of you have, been trying to explain the
> exceptionality of MOQ to friends and , well, people
> in general really. And I think that we all have
> faced the same kinds of problems at one point or
> another, that being the problem of trying to get
> someone who is so deeply rooted in the SOM to be
> open to question their own view. It is not, I think
> strange that a lot of people seem to have a very
> hard time of understanding the basic concept of
> Quality as it is in MOQ, and that I think is not
> because of incapacity to do so, but rather because
> of fear. It stands natural that to change ones basic
> view of the world would appear to be a scary thing
> for a lot of people - even though many here I think
> would testify to the contrary - it naturally follows
> that one instead clings to an old idea with the same
> zeal you would find in someone hanging over a cliff,
> grasping a rotten branch.
>
> There is a very big problem here. I think you all
> would agree that this view that we hold is one that
> it is of very high Quality to spread to people, and
> I in turn would go further to imply that it might be
> a kind of duty, in some sense, for all of us to try
> to do so. As I reed Lilas Child before, Bodvar wrote
> something about the ancient Platonists, those that
> fought to have their ideas of SOM recognised, and
> how the Lila Squad was quite like that. I think I
> would agree there, and that leads me on to my point;
>
>
> What I think would be a good thing to be done right
> now, in this very time, for the benefit of the MOQ,
> is to more trash the SOM. I don't mean this in any
> kind of hostile way - I personally no longer feel
> the anger towards it that I did before reading ZMM
> and Lila - but it seems to me to be one of the most
> practical things that can be done at this time. I
> say, assemble all of the platypi that can be found,
> write it down, and have it ready. When someone asks
> "why MOQ" there is the obvious answer that since a
> metaphysics is no truth , only an interpretation,
> and a tool, it only makes sense to use the best tool
> there is, and why is MOQ better then SOM - here is
> the list! If we had such a list. It would just be
> easier.
>
> Well, thoughts? Is this at all worth talking about?
> 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/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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/
