At 03:18 AM 3/25/2008, you wrote: >Hi Marsha > >24 March you wrote: > >Bo before: > > >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) > >Marsha: > > Since, Bo, we're all trapped into using a language that is > > subject/object oriented, and since you cannot know what type of > > understanding another individual holds (especially separated from the > > s/o language), where do you get the ability to make such a judgement > > as 'disappointment'??? Are you the next all-seeing, all-knowing > > Messiah? We all care about the MOQ as much as you do. Can you not > > realize this??? > >No, I'm no Messiah, but at times I feel like a Paul having been >struck by the light on his way to Damascus and afterwards >relentlessly pursue his interpretation of the master's teachings. >Hadn't it been for Paul there possibly had been no Christendom, >and following this megalomaniac parable I wonder if we have a >fight for MOQ's soul going on? Pirsig - like Jesus - is far too >vague on many points and switches from the most bland >SOMism to true MOQism.
Greetings Bo, I think RMP's Metaphysics of Quality is an excellent framework. I think it represents a world's view that's time has come. That his genius pulled it together is certainly astounding. I would rather have the MOQ stay dynamic, than turn into static crap. It will be more useful that way. Besides, I don't think of Christendom as anything but death, destruction and slavery. Two thousand years ago I imagine I would have been on the side of the opposition, The Cult of Isis. >Language as S/O oriented? In the grammatical sense perhaps, >but SOM is more than a subject (an individual) different from >other individuals they becoming objects in this context, it is the >"objective attitude" described by ZAMM. Anyway, the MOQ >introduces the dynamic/static chasm instead of the S/O one (we >are no longer isolated subjects) and when my references to the >Newton example raises so many voices of protests and disbelief I >think I am justified in my disappointment. I do not believe that gravity existed before Newton. Does gravity inherently exist now? My answer would be no. It's an analogy for a handy-dandy pattern. But then so is the MOQ a handy-dandy pattern. It just happens to be one I think quite beautiful. I also think it is, and will continue to be, quite useful as the West moves beyond duality. No, I will not send you a photo of the painting. (Please don't make me sorry I mentioned it.) Marsha Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
