Ron
On 1 April you wrote:
Bo:before:
> The "Hot Stove" example I omit because no one has to this day
> offered an explanation (if Ron understands it - please elaborate).
Ron now:
> If I were to fly over to where you live, and snuck up on you
> While you were shopping and hit you in the back of the head
> With a rolled up newspaper, you would be experiencing Quality.
> After you came to your senses, saw me standing over you
> With said newspaper THEN you would develop an intellectualization,
> Thus an understanding that I just clobbered you (note the s/o
> distinction) If I were to clobber you and run off, with no witnesses
> or evidence, you Would come to your senses after being flooded with
> pain and confusion And struggle to put together a scenario of just
> what the hell happened. You would be putting together an
> intellectualization to account for your experience.
In the MOQ "intellect" does not emerge from biology (sensing a
blow) No, there is some deep significance here - possibly Pirsig's
own "Quality Event" that started it all - and his conviction is that if
anyone sees this, he/she would experience the same insight. But
- alas - most people interpret the "Hot Stove" as a demonstration
of the autonomous neural system that reacts without any cerebral
mediation.
Bo earlier:
> it's news to me that (Pirsig sees)
Pirsig: "...the Metaphysics of Quality resolves the subject-
object problem by containing it at A HIGH level so that
there really is no contradiction between the two systems
of metaphysics."
> ...and I wish that was true, because that is just what the SOL does by
> making the intellectual level the S/O distinction.
Ron:
> It is true, and the key to understanding what he means and What I'm
> trying to get across.
Bo earlier:
> But then Pirsig contradicts himself by repeating that the two LOWER
> LEVELS are "objective" ....etc
Ron:
> He is not contradicting himself Read carefully, the MoQ levels are 4th
> level patterns. He contains them To this level because that's all they
> are. Objective truth is a 4th Level pattern. a subjective pattern. We
> view reality with our intellectual glasses.
No, Ron, this is nonsense. If all levels just exists as intellectual
patterns then it (the 4th. level) has become SOM's mind that - to
an idealist - contains it all.
> Use your newfound understanding of the many truths principle.
I do understand the "many truth", but don't agree. My reasoning
(in extremely zipped form) goes like this: Ancient mankind (Q-
Social level) looked upon his world as reality itself, nothing about
a metaphysical finger pointing to an ineffable reality. This unity
followed the social level all the way, even as it developed the
modern form we call "religion" No true believer look upon his faith
as a theory about something. Then along comes the 4th. value
level and here theory and reality part ways - I need not elaborate
- and because social value is intellect's natural born enemy it
turned against the social unity. OK -fast forward - then the MOQ
that says that intellect is a static level under its own
Dynamic/Static system i.e. its (intellect's) theory/reality
distinction isn't fundamental. See, this means that the MOQ's
Quality=Reality is a re-union - aught to be - but then Pirsig insists
that the MOQ is just another intellectual pattern, another theory
about reality. That reality now is Quality doesn't mean a thing.
Nothing is gained.
Ron:
> Pirsig does not go against the SOL, that the SOL is superfluous to the
> MOQ is quite evident. The only difference is that SOL clings To the
> notion of ultimate objective truth and redefines Moq Based on that.
You have and odd way of suddenly using capital letters - had it
been with nouns it would indicated an oldie, but you are young.
Anyway if you mean that my trust in the MOQ means "clinging to
ultimate objective truth" you have a point, but the buck stops with
the MOQ.
> The reason it resembles Pirsigs earlier work Is because that is the
> origin point in which Pirsig develops And realizes his metaphysic.
> Pirsig, as us, was heavily Influenced by objective thinking, he
> brought us along on the realization process so That we may come to
> understand the MOQ in the same manner he came to understand it. By
> doing just that, thinking for ourselves. Thanks for helping me to
> understand SOL and MOQ Bo. I have learned a great deal from you.
Thank you Ron. (even if your agreement is a mixed blessing ;-)
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/
