Hi again
Ron Kulp wrote:
> There is a paradigm shift that happens in regard to the MOQ levels.
>
> It can be interpreted in a general overall evolutionary way.
> It can be interpreted in a culturally specific way.
I think I see what you mean here. I mostly talk about the former and Bo mostly
discuss the latter, right?
> To get the two intertwined causes a lot of confusion.
No kidding... :)
> In the culturally specific interpretation, SOM is intellect.
> MOQ is free from the glass cage. (giddy laughter)
But has no foundation in our universe on which to stand.
> In the general evolutionary interpretation SOM, MOQ are
> Types of Static intellectual patterns-back in the cage
> Heeyah! "whip crack" MOQ slinks back into its proper
> Place where immediate experience of DQ takes center
> Stage. (whip is required else either will consume you,
> doomed to objective fallacy once more.)
What happened here?
1. Why did you include "SOM" in "In the general evolutionary interpretation
SOM"
above?
2. Please elaborate on the "objective fallacy".
> This is why we chase our tails amongst ourselves
> here on the forum, all of us quoting Pirsig
> and being more or less correct. But getting nowhere
> in furthering a cohesive conception and thus
> this on-going thread.
Yes I agree. However, one important point to make is that both are valid. The
reason I concentrate on the evolutionary version is because it's closer to the
bottom we discussed. We can use it to get our facts straight, refine the MoQ
and
then we can go on to the cultural aspect and dissect it using our refined MoQ.
Doesn't that sound like fun?
Magnus
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/
