Dan 1 April:
Bo before > > 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. It all hinges on regarding the intellectual level from MOQ's point of view, not from intellect's own which is from SOM. If one insists on the latter these my utterings becomes gibberish. > > 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. The subjective/objective distinction is the 4th. level, it's the only way to interpret the MOQ that makes sense. For the very reason that intellect is a static level of the MOQ, not the other way round. Hence you sort of "step down" when viewing things from intellect. > > 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. Again, all hinges on putting intellect in its proper place as a static level of the MOQ, not putting the MOQ inside intellect. The latter violates the container analogue you know. > [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: It has nothing to do with your book and I feel just as bad when criticizing Pirsig but i put the MOQ above RMP > 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. It would have taken too long to comment all of the 102th. annotation, but it's the (newfangled ) subjective slant I protest. In ZAMM Phaedrus took on SOM and rejected both horns, and further identified SOM as "intellect". Had the MOQ in LILA continued this and placed the 4th level accordingly all would had been fine, but as said, he made it something like SOM's mind. And in a metaphysics that rejects the mind/matter split this is disastrous and you know the years of discussing it and finally the PT letter where Pirsig almost admitted the SOL (no intellect much before the Greeks) but as not to make it final he put in the "much" and then added the new "symbol manipulaion" intellectual definition plus the "Oriental Intellect" so that the quandary could go on. > 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? I wish I wasn't so intellectual/rational and "cold", but had more social/emotional qualities. I see the MOQ as taking intellect down a peg so my obsession with it must be some self-flagellation. Bo PS Could you point to some quagmirish conclusions from the SOL? 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/
