Bo: It is in MOQ's level light we must read ZAMM. It's clear as day that it
describes intellect emerging from its social origin. If you have some other interpretation please tell. From these premises it's no wonder that Plato's tried to "destroy" the old social perception - the ubiquitous Aretê that no one to this day really know what was. At least I agree with you in the debate with DMB who - now - has found > Essence to be the Serpent in (our) Eden. To deny that Quality is > Pirsig's ultimate is plain silly, but whether one says > "Quality=Reality", "Essence=Reality" is insignificant, the important > thing is that the S/O is not the fundamental divide of reality, the Dynamic/Static divide is. Only a metaphysical divide of reality can account for existence, the S/O one created paradoxes while the Dynamic/Static doesn't, thanks to the level hierarchy. About ultimate reality ... etc. goes without saying. My "Godelian" observation is that we "ultimately" will meet ourselves in the door and my meeting with myself is that I relegate the search for the ultimate (objective) reality to the intellectual level - SOM - that again gave rise to a metaphysics that degraded the very same search to a static level. The worst attacks are the alleged defenses of it. The early bad reviews of LILA are child's play compared to the said phenomena. SOM is equal to academy and its "dee-Dewey-da-James-dum..." approach to the MOQ is its death knell. The MOQ turns light-year wide circles around academical philosophology. Ron: Both YOUR MoQ and "academical (word?) Philosphology" operate under the assumption that objective/static reality IS reality. Objectivity : a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"-that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. essentialism is a generalization stating that certain properties possessed by a group (e.g. people, things, ideas) are universal, and not dependent on context. Questions you need to answer: If the old problems of SOM were it's assumption that it observed reality from a gods eye view, your MoQ also falls to this error of assumption. How does your MoQ differ in any respect from the current situation of scientific inquiry into the human mind? WHERE and HOW does your approach turn light year circles around something that is virtually identical in approach? if it is this evident you should have no problem giving examples. 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/
