Wonder if Bo is going to respond to this branch of the thread SA ? Ian
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian, > > And that might be the crux of it. > > SA > > > > > --- ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Short answer Bo ... > > > > Yes I agree that understanding the intellectual > > level (I would say > > social and intellectual levels) is the crux of our > > difference. Has > > been for years - that's why I took your challenge to > > answer the > > specific question as rhetorical, since you already > > know my answer. > > > > The reason we agreed to diasgree about what did or > > didn't work here, > > was my dawning realization that Pirsig's view was > > simply historical, > > in fact it was you that pointed that out to me. > > > > The 4th level "was" SOM when it arose, but not "is" > > fundamentally so > > for all time. > > Basically - I believe I've moved on to better > > evolved understandings > > of "intellect". > > > > Ian > > > > On 5/12/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Hi Ian > > > > > > On 11 May: > > > > > > > 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, 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 > > > > > > This is the orthodox method of how the MOQ tucks > > SOM under > > > its wings, and it does not work, but was necessary > > because of the > > > miscarried intellectual level. In LILA it is used > > to demonstrate > > > how the MOQ solves the mind/matter paradox and > > should be > > > applicable to the nurture/nature one as well. But > > first the said > > > paradox > > > > > > It's due to SOM's two realm completely removed > > from each > > > other, one can pursue a thought forever, but > > nowhere does it pop > > > out into the matter realm, Yet we know that mind > > and matter > > > interacts constantly; we "make up our mind" and > > our body obeys. > > > This is its simplest form I know it has countless > > variants. > > > > > > Pirsig's explanation is that the social and > > biological levels > > > "connects" the mind and matter realms, but this > > presupposes that > > > the inorganic level=matter and the > > intellectual=mind, but this is > > > not true, he spends much time to demonstrate that > > matter > > > (substance) is a platypus, then it follows that > > mind is one too. And > > > even so this only brings the schism to > > biology/society. How does > > > "objective" biological patterns interact with > > "subjective" social > > > patterns? > > > > > > No, it's still-born. The obvious solution is that > > the S/O distinction > > > is intellects static value. Because of that (a > > mere static level) it > > > will start spawning paradoxes if treated as > > reality's deepest > > > schism. This dis-solves all S/O-induced paradoxes > > in the same > > > manner as Newton's physics dissolved those induced > > by the early > > > Greek physics' flawed premises. > > > > > > In the nurture/nature paradox the orthodox method > > is just as > > > unwieldy. Nurture=society and nature =biology so > > here no levels > > > are missing > > > > > > The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because > > the > > > connecting links between these two levels of > > value > > > patterns have been disregarded. Two terms are > > missing: > > > biology and society. (LILA) > > > > > > But the mystery of what constitute the human > > behavior - biology > > > or society - is just as acute and the SOL-ution > > just as simple and > > > liberating, SOM's nurture and nature has nothing > > to do with > > > MOQ's 2nd. and 3rd. levels (as little as matter > > and mind has with > > > its 1st. and 4th.) This paradoxes is (also) > > created by intellect as > > > SOM and disappears with SOM as a MOQ level. > > > > > > Ian ctd: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > My comment to you is that the way to teach a > > SOMist that is not to > > > > "teach" them that. Show them examples, show the > > koans, lead their > > > > questions, help their answers. Telling them they > > are wrong, and you > > > > are right, gets nobody anywhere - just a recipe > > for war.. > > > > > > > Am I at least addressing your question ? > > > > > > I'm afraid you are, but allow me to drone on. Do > > you agree that > > > the intellectual level is the fulcrum? If Pirsig > > had treated it as > > > SOM - not as if the villainous cuckoo "science" > > had laid its S/O > > > egg in its nest, then the SOL would have been the > > one and only > > > interpretation? Now, in the Paul Turner letter > > Pirsig comes one > > > hair's breadth from admitting that the 4th. level > > is SOM. > > > > > > I think the same happens to the term, > > "intellectual," when > > > one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.* > > > > > > ".. the same" is the absurdity of making the > > social level disappear > > > into molecules, cells and atoms, and "the ancient > > Greeks" is > > > SOM in moqtalk. So here we have it from Pirsig for > > those who > > > think I commit a "lèse majesty". > > > > > > Think about it. > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > 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/
