Platt,
Bo has already answered and said something like,
"I can see your trying to meet me half-way, but
without the intellectual level being SOM only I can't
agree." Bo's invested so much in the SOL
(intellect=SOM only route) that for him to back down
on this would be decades of argument wasted on his
behalf. It would indeed take much meekness on his
part to take this step.
SA
Ron:
> > Excellent .
>
> Yes, excellent. I wonder if Bo concurs?
>
> Platt
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Arlo
> > Bensinger
> > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:07 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Science and the MOQ
> >
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > No, I don't think we disagree. I personally like
> > strange loops and recursions, my point I suppose
> > was that we have to accept this circularity and
> > its limitations (and benefits) when we start to
> > define something according to itself.
> >
> > There are certainly, as Ron points out,
> > "intellectual patterns" we talk about here that
> > are descriptions of the MOQ. But a metaphysics
> > (any metaphysics, I would say) is more of an
> > orientation, a "Way", the active construction of
> > the system in the first place. SOM runs into the
> > same self-referential question, is SOM-itself a
> > "subject" or an "object"? I'd say "neither", but
> > a way of framing the world INTO subjects and
> objects.
> >
> > You see the "problem", of course. Any system that
> > "divides" the cosmos can't be contained within
> > any of its divisions. By definition, it is above
> those divisions.
> >
> > Pirsig mentions this in ZMM. "Quality is the
> > continuing stimulus which our environment puts
> > upon us to create the world in which we live. All
> > of it. Every last bit of it. ... Now, to take
> > that which has caused us to create the world, and
> > include it within the world we have created, is
> > clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be
> > defined. If we do define it we are defining
> > something less than Quality itself." (ZMM)
> >
> > I'm obviously on a "verb" kick here, and its not
> > entirely Ulysses S. Grant that is to blame,
> > although that quote sums up a lot of what I think
> > in very few words. Pirsig, by the way, also
> > supports this. "Quality is not a thing. It is an
> event." (ZMM)
> >
> > In Pirsig's talk with John on the existence of
> > ghosts for Indians, he says, "Those Indians and
> > medieval men were just as intelligent as we are,
> > but the context in which they thought was
> completely different." (ZMM)
> >
> > And that captures (I think) what I've said. The
> > MOQ is "the context in which we think".
> >
> > It is a Way. A Weltanschauung (in the untranslated
> German sense).
> >
> > And let me be clear, I don't think this is just
> > Pirsig's MOQ, but applies to the nature of all
> > metaphysical inquiries. Pirsig says as much in
> > LILA. "There already is a metaphysics of Quality.
> > A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a
> > metaphysics in which the first division of
> > Quality - the first slice of undivided experience
> > - is into subjects and objects." In this sense,
> > I'd argue, "metaphysics of Quality" is redundant.
> > There is Quality. And there are Metaphysical
> > descriptions of that Quality. We more or less
> > look past this redundancy due to Pirsig's
> > particular use of the word "Quality", and maybe
> that's part of the
> > confusion.
> >
> > So we start with an undefinable Quality, that is
> > an "event" not a "thing", that is approachable
> > always only through allegory and analogy, our
> > "way" of dividing Quality becomes the "context in
> > which we think", our Way of Being (or maybe
> > Metaphysics with a capital "M", but this is
> > active not descriptive). And then attempts to
> > describe this context form the intellectual
> > patterns we refer to as a metaphysics - which
> > then kicks off the self-referential recursions
> > since these are descriptions can never contain
> that which they describe.
> >
> > Make sense? (If so, you may be alone. :-))
> >
> > Arlo
> >
> >
> > 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/
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> 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/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
