Bo, This is well written -- good job.
I have just a couple of reactions, and forgive my lack of attribution of the pieces, but for this it is only that a suggestion of a slight shift in perception makes a part more clear from my POV. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [MD] The Quest for Quality > Hi Ham > > 16 Sep. you wrote: > > > > > > 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. (just so it's clear which message is the starting point )<snip> > > > 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. (mel) Almost. It seems that the S/O duality is a habit of thinking rather than 'our experiential reality.' We have come to trust that cleavage in our language, structurally, and in out thoughts, by habit and choice. S/O distinction is a useful tool, it has been for a long time, but it is not a 'native' or natural perception. It has to be conditioned into children, carefully, to make the subtlety of it fit as they try on our society. This is analogous to how we codify time in language, but once attained it is largely unquestioned. That is part of what makes MOQ a tough shift in thinking, it requires rooting beneath what we already know, unlearning or suspending learning from early in our lives. > > > > 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. (mel) Good Point... <snip> > 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. (mel) Both Philosophy and Science have a hidden risk when the practitioner crosses a very subtle line, from viewing the method/tool as useful, to regarding the fruit of such method as having value-in-and-of-itself. The philosophy or science can become a faith based religion with true believers and heretics. Academia is full of such. This is a tempting step, but in MOQ terms it elevates the Static to a place above the Dynamic, which makes S/O a counter-useful construct or practice at times. >The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide, this is the >metaphysical equivalent to Newton's physical revolution. (mel) I would change the above statement, slightly. Accurate comprehension of the MOQ is to understand its elucidation of the DQ/SQ relationship and nature; this is the metaphysical equivalent of Newton's physical revolution... (the use of "The true MOQ..." risks a misunderstanding of it as a 'true belief' against the infidels.) ...of course I could be too conditioned to that style of thought in the currrent social melieu. <snip> (I hope this does not appear too niggling, but sometimes the almost-right word is a wedge that derails my train of thought.) thanks--mel 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/
