Bo
> > On 31 Mar 2008 at 19:37, Dan Glover wrote:> > > I think the MOQ defines
> > culture as social and intellectual patterns of> > value (see LILA'S
> > CHILD).> > The MOQ does not define culture as anything but part of >
> > intellect's Culture/Nature dichotomy, one of that level's many S/O >
> > distinctions (aggregates)> > If however we step down from the MOQ to
> > intellect, "culture" > indicates a secondary reality that has established
> > itself on top of > the primary natural world ... so says the objectivist
> > (objective > over subjective) The subjectivists on the other hand says that
> > it's > the other way round: The human culture is what has created >
> > "nature". The finer points here I omit, but the "subjective over >
> > objective" attitude is clear. > > > [Dan]> > I'm sorry Joe but I totally
> > disagree with this. There is no 'MOQ> > meta-level' in Robert Pirsig's MOQ.
> > I think you're straying into Bo's> > SOL here. That has very little to do
> > with the MOQ proper, imo, of> > course.> > Phew! The 5th. level issue
> > again. The MOQ as a "meta-level" is > not understood. I'll try again: Where
> > do you find Newton's Physics > within Newton's Physics? Nowhere, yet it is
> > the meta-platform > from where all who subscribe to Newton's Physics
> > stands. This is > exactly MOQ's position, not that I think it will help
> > much though.> > The problem stems from the assertion that the MOQ is an >
> > intellectual pattern. The fact that this makes DQ a static pattern is >
> > countered by the assertion that the MOQ is just a metaphysics > about a
> > Quality beyond all theorizing. The fact that the initial > Quality=Reality
> > axiom is part of the MOQ and thus nullified is > swept under the carpet.
> > Even by Pirsig who in annotation 102 in > LC says:
Ah, yes, I would have to agree with this, it seems quite clear. an about this
finger pointing to the moon stuff that you commented on before, I think I have
to agree again. This is a metaphysical system. it incorporates everything. Else
it has failed.
> Except in the case of DQ, what is observed always > involves an interaction
> with ideas ... etc > > Who does he believe will swallow this? It's the
> Quality=Reality > postulate in a different form and nothing in this world can
> prove > or disprove it, while a lot speaks for the Dynamic/Static split as >
> better than the Subject/Object one. I have sympathy with Pirsig's > many
> efforts to demonstrate that value is the groundstuff, but it is > a postulate
> and part and parcel of MOQ's DQ/SQ. Pirsig's > denouncing the MOQ has
> paralysed it.
----------
Ah, and another thing - anything that isn't clearly originated from the social,
biological or inorganic level must be of the intellectual level, right? So, if
a thought arises, and it in no way is an expression for social or biological
values, musn't it be intellectual? I know, it sounds overly-simplistic, and I'm
counting on you to problematize it, but, well. enough for now.
Regards
Chris
_________________________________________________________________
Ladda ner hela Windows Live gratis och upptäck fördelarna!
http://get.live.com/
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/
