Hi Mel 18 Sep. you wrote:
> This is well written -- good job. Thanks a lot. > (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. You are correct, my point was merely that SOM was perceived as reality itself before the MOQ came along and showed that it isn't (in this respect Ham is clear) But then the crucial question is: What role is SOM relegated inside MOQ's static realm and my thesis is that it is the intellectual level - all of it (the SOL interpretation). > 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. Yes, but Ham is innocent, he openly declares MOQ invalid, worse are the alleged moqists who haven't moved an inch out of SOM .... or intellect IMO. > (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. Right, SOM has become so ingrained that the transition to the MOQ requires a bootstrap operation. > 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. Yes, insisting that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern makes it (the MOQ) a static construct. Bo before: > >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. I buy your "... elucidation of the DQ/SQ relationship" and also that speaking of a "true MOQ" is a bit zealous. Yet, what's not right is the view that the MOQ is a (new) intellectual pattern that will reform the 4th. level. Intellect is a MOQ pattern and the trick is to rise above that level (inside of which the term "intellect" means a mind that thinks) to the MOQ where the 4th. level is value of the mind/world distinction. > (I hope this does not appear too niggling, but sometimes > the almost-right word is a wedge that derails my train of thought.) No niggling at all and otherwise wise words. 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/
