Hello everyone > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:08:15 +0200 > Subject: Re: [MD] A World of Objects > > 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)
[Dan] Hi Bo, good of you to write! Your words seem profound but I'll be digged if I can figure out what you're saying. Perhaps something is being lost in translation. > > 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 think it's good to remember that there are no subjects and objects, hence no "subjectivists" and "objectivists." Still, since you are schooled in the "finer" points of the MOQ I would expect you to agree the intellectual level is part of the framework of the MOQ. Therefore to "step down from the MOQ to intellect" makes no sense. Also, "nature" in the MOQ pertains to inorganic and biological patterns of value, so I think what you're saying is misleading and outright incorrect. I see it as you slipping into subject-object primacy in your thinking due to your preoccupation with SOM as MOQ intellect theory. > >> [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. [Dan] I suggest that failing to agree with you and failing to understand you are not necessarily the same. If anyone here has taken the time to understand you, I think you would agree it's me. > > 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: > > 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. [Dan] I've always been most disappointed that you didn't think more of the annotations from LILA'S CHILD. You are after all the driving force behind the project. Personally, I thought annotation 102 elucidated a great many point of the MOQ. I have read it many times and can find no flaw. For those here not familar with it, I will reproduce the annoation in its entirety: I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV paper that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is through philosophic idealism, which says that objects grow out of ideas, not the other way around. Since at the most primary level the observed and the observer are both intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes of quantum theory have to be conflicts of intellectual assumption, not just conflicts of what is observed. Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is observed always involves an interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed. So the problem is not, “How can observed nature be so screwy?” but can also be, “What is wrong with our most primitive assumptions that our set of ideas called ‘nature’ are turning out to be this screwy?” Getting back to physics, this question becomes, “Why should we assume that the slit experiment should perform differently than it does?” I think that if researched it would be found that buried in the data of the slit experiment is an assumption that light exists and follows consistent laws independently of any human experience. If so, the MOQ would say that although in the past this seems to have been the highest quality assumption one can make about light, there may be a higher quality one that contradicts it. This is pretty much what the physicists are saying but the MOQ provides a sound metaphysical structure within which they can say it. (Robert Pirsig) Dan comments: Your snippet of the quote confirms the Buddhist notion of 'dependent-arising' whereby nothing exists indedendently of everything else. Furthermore, the quote clearly states that paradoxes only arise when the observer (subject) and the observed (object) are intellectually assumed as primary. I think this speaks volumes as to the quagmire your SOL leads one into. Sometimes, even though it gauls me to no end, I just have to admit I am wrong. That way, at least, I can grow and evolve into something intellectually better. It's hard, and I don't like it. But, it happens more often than I care to admit. Does it ever happen to you too? Thanks again for writing, Dan _________________________________________________________________ Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic. http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A 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/
