Bo, Ron, There is a lot in what Ron says Bo, that I can pick-up on, largely agree with, but before I do, Bo I need you to respond, as to whether I'm "on topic" as far as you are concerned.
Ian On 5/12/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Bo] > > But now it's quiz time. You > > see the MOQ resolving the issue. > > Please tell me how you see > > that done. > Ian: > What I did say was that "teaching them a lesson" in MoQ was probably > not the best solution. Teachning by the example of using Quality > thinking was the better answer - still is IMHO. > > But I can answer the specific question too. Almost too easy. > > The first split above "Quality" as our (chosen) metaphysical > foundation is Dynamic / Static, rather than S/O .... need I go on ? > > The reason it resolves many of the dichotomous either / or issues that > SOMists find themselves debating / arguing about is that they are > really choosing between two seemingly objective alternatives, > > Ron: > Mind/matter are two objective alternatives? Really? Then there is no > paradox eh? They are both objective you say. > > Ian continues: > when we > know that in fact they are not (need not). The view they are missing > is typically that the options they are debating are two static > patterns, and that the option they are missing is the excluded middle > of some dynamic balance / interaction of those patterns - their > patterns are rarely "wrong" merely historically static. The best way > to find those dynamic alternatives .... need I go on ... participation > ... etc. I know I don't need to explain MoQism to you. > > Ron: > Bo, Ian, > What I fail to see is HOW by defining reality by STATIC > Patterns better describes reality than OBJECTIVISM.? > Isn't interpreting reality as static patterns really > Just solving objectivism by redefinition? > > The Paradox S/O can't solve is the Mind/matter "problem". Right? > SOM treats subjective experience objectively and reaches a dead end.. > > By asserting that they are two Static patterns you are in a sense > Objectifying subjective experience. So now supposedly the feeling of Joy > Is equal with the experience of a rock. > MoQ has bridged the mind/matter gap by placing any experience that can > not be defined As DQ. So now we have a situation where what we can not > define > Is put in the indefinable category. And what we can define in the static > Category. > Seems to me we are right back where we started. With Objective being > what > We can define with certainty and subjective where we can not. > > My Question is, how does this supply any better explanatory power than > Traditional SOM. We are stuck in the same situation of experiencing > A whole side of reality that can not be defined. I Experience a whole > Host of things that can not be defined. Is'nt leaving it undefined > And swallowing it as DQ just the same as objectively writing off > subjective > as non-existent? Really what are we gaining by using DQ/SQ in this > Manner? Surely you MoQ teachers can help us along in this simple > question > >From simple minds. > In your own words please since you both have an understanding that out > reaches Pirsigs and our own. > > Thanks > > > > > > > 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/
