Bo: What you and Ron are missing I don't know, Ron: What I am missing is a coherent argument from you about SOL. Which you seem unable to produce. So far you base it all on Some sort of bastardized Frankenstein monster version of Pirsigs MoQ supporting SOM and solving by redefining, which dresses to Impress but fails on the dance floor. It supplies nothing new. So humor me Bodivar, just this last time. Lets go over this one more time, Your central contention is that S/O distinction arises out of experience. That the intellectual level is a logical philosophy Based on this experience through "logical channels". You state that "logic" is pre-existent to intellect. Animals can perform it. Logic is inherent in nature.
Since S/O distinction arises out of experience This duality must exist in some form in reality. Because the whole point here is developing a metaphysic Which accurately portrays the reality we experience. That having been said, SOL then attempts to CREATE a set of glasses (axiom) in which to see reality, more accurately by viewing s/o as Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. Now, Thinking in these terms increases explanatory power How? Is the question put to you by SA. I see it as static heavy(the 4 levels) in the same way S/O is objective heavy. So we do not gain much here. I see viewing objects as patterns in conflict interesting But I really do not see how it explains anything but a Justification of intellectual Darwinism which you Aptly display with regularity. Per your view, Because S/O is natural and Arises out of reality and is expressed through intellect, It conflicts with a good portion of the MoQ known as Lila. What Pirsig considers the more important of the two works. Which is interesting because this is the work in which the "Metaphysics of Quality" was formed and named as a concept. You in your quaint way have taken ZMM as a history Text and only see how Phaedrus traced SOM to It's Greek roots. Right to the arguments where the Sophists Method of argument lost to objective Dialectic. You say Socrates was just taking s/o logic to the next Logical step. Objectivism. Every one says wow! This Is the next step, and adopts Objectivism over myth And religion. Bang, the intellectual level. 2,000 yrs later Robert Pirsig comes along and says it would solve a lot of paradoxes by looking at S/O as DQ and SQ, looking at reality in a way that everything is a pattern of value, static value to be exact. this and DQ. whats DQ? Cant be defined. All we may define is static reality. But, is'nt that what Objectivism does? Define static reality? Does it quite well too I might add. How does calling it a static pattern help any? Well Practically it really does very little to help define static Objects. So Pirsig is not really offering anything by way Of SOL except intellectual elitism through redefinition. The next logical Step in evolution, (non to fear the Nazis will statically latch Bo). With the SOL in their hands like Mao's little red book The Q-revolution will triumph, it's inevitable, it's natures logic and Reason expressed through intellect!. It is the next step in evolution The fifth level. the Q-awareness that all is, in reality, one? in... Quality? Huh? Wait a second, you state that reality is expressed as S/O. There is a conflict here Bo. Which is it? Is reality one or is reality S/O ? if it is S/O then DQ/SQ means little. the intellectual Darwinism of the 4 levels works great. If it is "one in Quality" then It destroys your foundation in SOL. Ahh but the circular paradox Supports itself with the "Quality event". Which is nothing but conjecture In the face of your logic. SOL is based on a concept that it refutes at every turn. I have to ask then, how does the concept of Quality expressed as subject and object but interpreted as DQ/SQ help explain experience any better? Other than the intellectual elitist way. SOL the new objectivism. That's catchy, you should use it. Call it neo-objectivism and be done with it. Honestly Bo did you ever lay this out to see if it worked before You opened your mouth? You point out an interesting problem With MoQ but your solution is less than impressive. And you have the balls to call US amateurs. SOL does not resolve the mind/matter problem And it offers little if anything in the explanatory department Other than asserting that Bodivar Skutvik is at the top of the Intellectual elitist heap. Enough! 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/
