Magnus (fumed) to me. > You sound more and more like Ham. His writing also suggests that nothing > ever existed before humans came about and started to explore nature and > give names to it.
I said I had a certain sympathy with Ham when he spoke about his "Essentialism" going against common sense, IMO the said sense is SOM's "objective over subjective" side, but Ham merely lives on the "subjective over objective" side of the same coin and talks about "man creating the word" as if nothing existed before humankind became imbued with consciousness ... and thinks this goes for the MOQ too (I will answer Ham properly later). Back to the Newton issue. His Law of Gravity was the best explanation of data till then (Relativity has since then enlarged it and must be applied when conditions are extreme) Now,his physics is part of the much greater scientific attitude that took over from the mythological attitude that had dominated existence till the Greeks and SOM. P of ZAMM would have been as correct had he drawn this greater picture (at the campsite), but the Newton example was possibly as far as John Sutherland could follow (plus building the plot). But it's a disappointment that so few understand the "Sutherland" variety much less the MOQ's in its entirety which is that the said scientific (objective over subjective) attitude is MOQ's 4th. level (and the mythological attitude its 3rd.) In this level context there were no "man" until the social level's language that coined the term as well as "giving name to all the animals", but no-one started to explore nature because there was (still is) no nature at the 3rd. level, "culture/nature" is one of intellect's many dichotomies) It wasn't until the intellectual level that nature and its exploration began and only with it did (the view) of mankind imbued with a mind (consciousness) that surveys reality find its form. Not its final form though, because this level has like all levels evolved more and complex patterns (in my opinion the Quality Idea is one so dynamic that it can't be contained by intellect, but enough for now) To most people this complexity (Quantum Physics f.ex.) looks like "objectivity" has dissolved and - consequently - reality is subjective. But as said many times the S/O is a see-saw (an aggregate) even if weight has shifted to the subjective side the objective doesn't go away it has merely resulted in theories like Ham's about "the world a result of consciousness", and Pirsig regrettably is so vague that he can be used to support such. And this is as far as I got. The rest of Magnus' exasperated and shocked remarks will have to wait. 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/
