Ian:
> Wonder if Bo is going to respond to this branch of
> the thread SA ?
SA: I doubt it. He always does this. He's done this
a tens of times. Ham's the same way. When trapped,
their quiet, then they'll come back with a SOL or
Essence response somewhere. As the propaganda horns
harshly and incoherantly blare the sound goes out, but
no response can go back in. Some say it is also done
by gunpoint. Hmmm, says the rabbit.
woods,
SA
SA:
> > 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
>
=== message truncated ===
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/
