Hi Ham 16 Sep. you wrote:
> [Bo]: > > At times you make sense in the sense of writing in a way > > that makes sense. You must be from an age close to mine, > > born in the thirties. > Thank you (I think). I was born in 1931, which makes me old enough to > have witnessed a glocal war and the displacement of spirituality by > existentialism which is objectivist nihilism. Thank YOU, at least a mature person who writes a (as far as I can tell) a proper English. About existentialism we agree. > > Do you agree that we - the Western culture at least - live in a > > mind-matter split existence? That is the point of departure for the > > MOQ. ... > Absolutely. The S/O duality is not a philosophy. It is our > experiential reality. OK, another clear statement. > > Or perhaps I should start with the even more fundamental > > question: Do you agree with Pirsig's opening move that there exists > > no human beings without a notion of how existence is ordered ... > > before spoiling it by making metaphysics the Aristotelian kind of > > "a theory about an already theory/reality-divided existence"? > The ordering of the physical universe, including its moral values, is > the work of man's intellect, not the primary source. The MOQ says that the intellectual level was the introduction of a physical universe in contrast to a ordering mind, but it also says that inside that level it looks as if such an universe/mind split has existed always and will go on for ever. THis is what the Newton example in ZAMM says: A great new insight/revelation comes along and in a crystallizing process it transforms the future, present and PAST in its picture. That you (Ham) don't get this message, but goes on thinking that intellect is the ordering mind is forgivable, but that the moqists around this site ignore it is a tragedy. > I do not blame Aristotle for taking an SOM approach to knowledge. > Indeed, the systemization and classification of objective knowledge is > not only beneficial to man but is the most effective methodology we > have for understanding relational (i.e., physical) phenomena. alue The intellectual level is the highest and best static value, no disagreement here. > But Science is not Philosophy; it is based on empirical data derived > from and limited by human experience. Ultimate reality is > "meta-physical", which means that it transcends experience and is > indefinable in empirical terms and principles. Right, here is the crux where you are well-meaning but wrong. Science is the essence of the intellectual level, that of a human mind exploring a physical universe. Philosophy on the other hand believes itself to be above science, but is firmly based on the same S/O-intellectual outlook. This includes your own Essence, and Pirsig's Quality as essence with the MOQ a theoretical ordering. The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide, this is the metaphysical equivalent to Newton's physical revolution. > You and Ron seem to understand my metaphysical approach, for which I > am grateful. I'm also encouraged by your postscript "That's all for a > start". If we can continue in this fundamental vein, it may even be > possible to "make (some) sense" of what Christoffer started on 9/12 as > The Quest for Quality. What Ron "understands" I don't know, but lets keep it fundamental. 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/
