On 7/29/08 9:44 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Likewise, Joe's use of  the words "defined" and "undefined" in relation to
> metaphysical concepts is misleading.  Everything known in existence (SOM)
> can be defined, even if not fully explained.  That MoQ's author chose not to
> define SQ, DQ, Quality Patterns, Intellect, or the Conscious Self does not
> mean that such concepts are undefinable.

Hi Ham,

Your statement is misleading.  You are accepting metaphysics as what is
definable.  This eliminates emotions, and physical actions which  MOQ theory
accepts as indefinable.  SOM theory had to propose an intentional existence
in contrast to real existence to define emotions and actions.  SOM has been
shown by modern science to be flawed in that you cannot define the Subject
therefore only the Object is real.  Persig corrected that objection in his
view of the MOQ.  Mystical value is as real as defined value.

My understanding of Intellectual level values are Subject/Object
values. A S/O value has a dual relationship in the perception of a reality
beyond words, undefined/defined.

My understanding of Social level value is the value of consciousness which
is indefinable. I am alone. Only the values of the subject are known at the
social level.  The intellectual level evolved to SOL which uses analogy and
metaphor for the values in the subject.

Society for an individual becomes mechanical as Culture hands us a set of
glasses.  He/she accepts the glasses from the parent or leader.  Undefined
self/awareness is lost in imitation.  This void necessitated evolution to
the intellectual level of law, where the S remains undefined and O becomes
definable. 

> In fact, most metaphysical concepts can be defined, although they are
> typically incapable of description.  For example, the concept of God,
> Essence, or Absolute Source eludes description because descriptive terms
> apply to experienced attributes or properties.  However, as Cusanus
> demonstrated in the 15th century, the transcendent source can be defined as
> "the coincidence of all contrariety, the 'Not-Other' which is not opposed to
> any [actualized] other."   For the same reason, we can't describe
> Nothingness, but we can define it either as "that which does not exist" or
> "that from which nothing can come."

I gather descriptive definitions using analogy and metaphor do not have any
meaning to metaphysical concepts?  "The all powerful creator" is not a
metaphor?  It certainly isn't available for physical examination.  IMO The
historical point I see for the birth of the Intellectual level is the
inscription of the ten commandments in stone.  The evolution to a law for
order in consciousness was necessary. Slavery was destroying self-awareness.
The Culture of slavery defines the S which has indefinable aspirations, and
the rebellion was lawful.  A written Law evolved. The S/O relationship
evolved, law, the intellectual level.  S can evolve further into
enlightenment.
 
> I would suggest that an effort be made to define the problematic terms of
> the MoQ before concluding that the 'levels ontology' is metaphysically
> incomprehensible.  Ideally, such a project would be undertaken by an
> acknowledged scholar of Pirsig's philosophy and developed as a glossary or
> addendum to the author's published works.   It would go a long way toward
> making the Quality thesis comprehensible to newcomers, as well as providing
> an "official guide" to the most controversial issues.

If the problematic terms are defined it is no longer Metaphysics, it is
predictable Physics with no self-will, quite incomplete.

> Best regards,
> Ham

Joe
> 
> 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/

Reply via email to