Ron and Perella On 8 May:
Bo had said: > > > ...because the subject/object > > > split is inferior > > > compared with the dynamic/static one. Perella: > > I'll try one more time. I've asked this question > > a number of times, but you have not been able to > > answer. What is the dq/sq split? Show a difference > > between the latter and an s/o split. Ron: > This is a great question SA! > What do you think it is? > This question could propel a good > Discussion. > Bo maintains that the DQ/SQ split > And/or the S/O split is the first > Division in perceived reality. Thus > SOM being the intellectual level. I give Ron credit for having understood the SOL this far, but first to Perella's question which is a bit peculiar for a person who partakes in a MOQ discussion, but never mind. The DQ/SQ split is MOQ's axiom (= a statement accepted as true without proof or argument") thus asking what it IS is futile. The S/O split is SOM's axiom, is has no proof, but everybody accept it "..hey isn't there a mind realm inside my head as different from the matter world outside it?" But upon closer examination it is far from obvious, it creates a host of paradoxes (platypis) The MOQ challenges SOM's matter-of-course and says that reality's fundamental split isn't subject/object (many variants: mind/matter, soul/body, mental/corporeal, cultural/natural ...etc.) rather dynamic/static where the former S/O is confined to its own static part (to the 4th. level IMO, to the whole static range according to Pirsig) and this arrangement dissolves SOM's paradoxes. Well, that's about all in a nutshell, but the professor will gladly expound. Over to Ron's objections > I personally believe that this > Perspective flies in the face of > Pirsigs pre-intellectual experience. > It doesn't exist according to Bo. "Pre-intellect/Intellect" was ZAMM's first tentative split and in a MOQ retrospect "pre-intellect" corresponds to DQ and "intellect" to DQ. In the first proto-moq (whose dynamic=romantic and static=classic) the latter is sub-titled "intellectual" and S/O- divided. Now, in the final MOQ DQ's first creation weren't "intellect", but the 4th. level should have been the S/O split, that way ZAMM and LILA would have been one unbroken whole. > I believe that the first split is in > Linguistic distinction. Therefore the > Intellectual level may contain as many > Patterns as cultures/languages. Making > The MoQ one of many intellectual > Patterns gives Pre-intellectual > Experience accessibility. Language is a social level pattern and as such the intellectual level couldn't have been present before the intellectual level. Even to-day there are cultures that hasn't arrived at the intellectual level, but they all have language. > I disagree with Bo's SOL which > Essentially Throws out pre-intellect for > A fifth level. Again and again the silly 5th. level. OK you know how to taunt me ;-) > He maintains the Greeks invented "thinking" > When they and the Vedic were the first > To create RULES for thinking. "Thinking" in the intelligence sense has been with the Q-evolution since the biological neural network facilitated storing of experience, its retrieval and manipulation along logical "gates". The Greeks began using intelligence along the S/O pattern because "philosophy" necessarily is a search for objective truth, thus if the Orientals had their philosophical era (the Upanishads not Vedic) before the Greeks they also had their intellectual era. However they didn't settle there (like the Occidentals) but passed on to a Quality-like stage. 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/
