On Tuesday 13 May 2008 1:11 AM Bo writes to Joe: On 11 May you wrote: > In the history of thought a theory of knowledge precedes metaphysics. > Plato proposed a world of ideas as the source of knowledge. Aristotle > proposed abstraction as the way we know things. Revelation! Myths! > Stories! Heroes! [Bo] A little salvo of "friendly fire" ;-). You are a bit like Ham and Krim by dropping baits of talking coherently about the MOQ for a while, but when someone grabs it, its just a pretext for starting on some pre-conceived ideas of your own with a following vocabulary. Now, you are a nice guy, but the MOQ is the focus around here. Hi Bo and all,
[Joe] A discussion among friends! I like that. Yes, Bo, I lived before Pirsig wrote ZAMM or LILA. I had an education and I approach MOQ with respect, but it is not all that I think about. My understanding of your concern is that we should not discuss evolution from any other viewpoint than MOQ. You understand Pirsig as saying that the highest level he discusses is SOL. I agree with that, but from my experience I accept a way of talking SOL that would accept that evolution is not completely dormant even when MOQ is the focus. Perhaps evolution has continued, and there is a MOQ meta-level in consciousness only? How many more levels? [Joe] The dynamic movement of cell-wall penetration by another cell for reproduction is interesting in the levels of mechanical evolution. Culture hands us a set of glasses! This suggests a division into a conscious/mechanical ways of behavior for a more complete paradigm of DQ/SQ. What other questions put boundaries around DQ, the undefined? Your curiosity must be a little peaked. SOL is a magnificent achievement. If DQ is accepted as ³existence²??????? Levels in existence??????? [Joe] Out of the mainstream there is an esoteric literature that proposes a law of seven for order! A law of three for manifestation! Does that sound interesting in SOL terms? Most friendly, but a bit venturesome. Joe On 5/13/08 1:11 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You may not have understood the immense scope of the MOQ. > In ZAMM Pirsig tells about how he sees SOM emerging out of the > mythological past with Socrates and Plato as midwifes and > Aristotle the first recognizable SOMist. "History of thought" and > "theory of knowledge" are all part of SOM's repertoire and so is > "metaphysics" in the Aristotelian sense of subjective theories > about an objective reality. > > The early Greek thinkers did not start by "theories of knowledge" > they began by searching for eternal principles something that can > be seen as the beginning of a new objective attitude that ended > its first stage with the notion of TRUTH. The first proposal based > on objectivity was Plato whose Ideas were the true objective part > with Appearance the fleeting subjective counterpart. With > Aristotle "Substance" appears as the O with "Form" the S, and > this is more like the modern variety of SOM that emerged much > later. > >> [Joe] >> As a science psychology is mechanistic, and there is no sense of a >> difference in how we know things, other than typing on the keys of my >> computer, and how big my computer is! Mystics, however, are in a >> different category. > > ?? > >> [Joe] >> How can I communicate the undefined? What key shall I press? I >> accept Pirsig¹s insight that there is a part of my reality that is >> undefined. But how can I talk about it using defined words? >> ³Consciousness is realities ground², if we are going to communicate >> with each other. Consciousness is defined and undefined! > > All right if consciousness is reality's base, then a MOC is called > for. Undefine (dynamic) Consciousness versus Defined (static) > Consciousness. Then levels of consciousness that starts with > inorganic consciousness and ends with intellectual > consciousness. A perfect replica of the MOQ. > >> ³Culture hands us a set of glasses!² The debate is whether I know and >> can talk about the undefined. Metaphor, analogy, and gesture are ways >> of talkingcommunicating the undefined. Experience is not undefined. I >> know what I am talking about? Yeah! Well you are wrong, and I have a >> bigger gun that says so. So much for epistemology these days! > > It's impossible to avoid language, but we don't "talk about the > undefined" other than saying that it is undefined. But be my guest > if language is even more fundamental than consciousness a > Metaphysics of Language is overdue. Can't you see what Pirsig's > idea is? Finding reality's basic entity and then dividing it it the > Dynamic/Static way ... which is the only alternative to the S/O. > > Most friendly, but a bit frustrated > > 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/
