Christoffer,
yeah man, flower power rules, OK?
-Peter
2008/9/19 Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> .. also, how to follow dynamic quality??> -Peter
Live. follow that inherent drive to expand. in whatever direction. DQ is
everywhere.
IMO
Chris
_________________________________________________________________
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/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:34:48 -0400
From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] Discrete & Dependent
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
An aside analogy:
A civil war photograph is to the Civil War,
like what conventional truth is to Ultimate Truth.
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the
stars.........
.
.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:46:15 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MD] The Quest for Quality
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Ham
18 Sep. you spoke:
After I said that Aristotle is not to be faulted for launching the
objective approach to knowledge (which some regard as "intellectual"),
you fault me for doing the same thing ...
Objective approach to knowledge? I would say that "knowledge" is the
objective (scientific) approach, but OK.
Bo before:
> 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.
"Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a
definition of Science. If you mean that experiential knowledge is the
goal of Science, I would agree. Scientific methodology is the logical
approach to understanding physical reality.
Your refusal to look through the MOQ "glasses" makes it difficult.
Anyway, intellect is the distinction between a reality out there and a
mind in here, but as the level grew more complex and the apparatus to
test its conclusions got more sophisticated, paradoxes proliferated,
the latest demonstrated by Quantum Physics.
But physical reality is not the primary essence, and as I've said
previously, objective knowledge is not wisdom (true insight), and
Science is not Philosophy.
The distinction between a (physical) reality and an observing subject
first paradox is that one of these must be primary - the source of the
other (the materialist/ idealist quarrel). This has gone on since time
immemorial and is what the MOQ reveals as futile because it stems
from the S/O distinction being static. Your "essence" belongs to the
idealist camp.
Bo before:
> 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 go on thinking that intellect is the ordering
> mind is forgivable, but that the moqists around this site
> ignore it is a tragedy.
How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from?
The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of
DQ.
A new INTELLECTUAL insight (like Newton's) comes along by
intellects premises being manipulated by intelligence's logical gates.
I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a
relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and
cogency as "insight". Neither the value that is sensed nor the
awareness that senses it is an "existent". All insight is proprietary
to the individual observer. And that includes the appearance of
physical phenomena (i.e., experiential reality).
An animal may have an "insight" about new ways to get food, but this
is not intellect and you can't call it (the ways) proprietary to a crow
(for
instance) there is not individuality (subjectivity) at the biological
level.
All this value-talk belongs to MOQ's "meta-level"
Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question:
Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical
equivalent to Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of
its realization by the cognizant mind?
The MOQ does not exist independently of SOM, this had to be
achieved before the total picture could be seen. SOM is the distinction
between a cognizant mind and a non-cognizant world so in that sense
"a cognizant mind" is necessary (at least) for a material universe".
However in a MOQ retrospect the mind/matter distinction is itself a Q-
development (its 4th. level) so in the total picture - no - the Quality-
ordered universe is not dependent on a mind. It HAS neither mind nor
matter except as an aggregate.
In other words, can a universe exist without sensible awareness? That,
I think, is the fundamental issue in this discussion.
Listen, the MOQ postulates that the intellectual level creates (your)
cocksureness that only a mind can make a physical universe become
existent. The social level is/was not aware of any such distinction.
There were (is for people still at that level) it) no mind that perceived
a
physical reality, rather everything was guided by forces that permeated
the world. These could be manipulated by correctly performed rituals
(a remnant is religious prayers and sacraments). Intellect looks down
on this as ignorance or superstition, but the MOQ brings intellect a peg
down too.
Can we be more fundamental?
Bo
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:09:25 -0400
From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] Discrete & Dependent
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 06:34 AM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
An aside analogy:
A civil war photograph is to the Civil War,
like what conventional truth is to Ultimate Truth.
It's a simile, not an analogy? Regardless, surely this is another
way to say it:
A civil war photograph is to the Civil War,
like what a static-pattern-of-value is to Quality.
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the
stars.........
.
.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:22:31 -0400
From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] Buddhism
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[Krimel]
Let me add that neither of us has any power to convince you of the
foolishness of thinking we have the same host. We would have no better
luck
in convincing you that the earth is round if you are believe it is flat or
that your fascination with Buddhist thought arises as much from its
novelty
as from the sense it makes.
Marsha
The above statement seems to be a poor and underhanded challenge to
my interest in Buddhism. But maybe you have legitimate concerns, and
I would like to hear the basis for such a remark.
[Krimel]
My main point was that conviction is not of function of reason and
evidence
any more than perception is a function on sensation. We accept what feels
right regardless of logic or facts. Logic and facts get bent to fit our
gut
level sense of betterness without regard to truth.
My secondary point with regards to Buddhism is really; are you running
"toward" the "betterness" of Buddhism or "away" from the "worseness" of
western thinking.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:00:35 -0400
From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] Buddhism
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:22 AM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
>[Krimel]
>Let me add that neither of us has any power to convince you of the
>foolishness of thinking we have the same host. We would have no better
>luck
>in convincing you that the earth is round if you are believe it is flat
>or
>that your fascination with Buddhist thought arises as much from its
>novelty
>as from the sense it makes.
Marsha
The above statement seems to be a poor and underhanded challenge to
my interest in Buddhism. But maybe you have legitimate concerns, and
I would like to hear the basis for such a remark.
[Krimel]
My main point was that conviction is not of function of reason and
evidence
any more than perception is a function on sensation. We accept what feels
right regardless of logic or facts. Logic and facts get bent to fit our
gut
level sense of betterness without regard to truth.
My secondary point with regards to Buddhism is really; are you running
"toward" the "betterness" of Buddhism or "away" from the "worseness" of
western thinking.
Krimel,
I would like to leave behind the worseness of both and run towards
the betterness of both. Who would want it any other way? And
actually I'm trying to hold hands the MOQ to facilitate this
strategy. Want to define how you think I'm doing?
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the
stars.........
.
.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:26:48 -0400
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] The Quest for Quality
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original
Hi Bo --
Objective approach to knowledge? I would say that "knowledge" is the
objective (scientific) approach, but OK.
Yes, that is a more logical definition. I stand corrrected. (Where I
understand you, your propositions are well constructed. It's those
propositions of yours I don't understand that are frustrating. But I
suppose that's to be expected.)
[Bo before]:
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.
[Ham]:
"Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a
definition of Science. If you mean that experiential knowledge is the
goal of Science, I agree. Scientific methodology is the logical
approach to understanding physical reality.
[Bo]:
Your refusal to look through the MOQ "glasses" makes it difficult.
Anyway, intellect is the distinction between a reality out there and a
mind in here, but as the level grew more complex and the apparatus to
test its conclusions got more sophisticated, paradoxes proliferated,
the latest demonstrated by Quantum Physics.
The distinction between a (physical) reality and an observing subject
first paradox is that one of these must be primary - the source of the
other (the materialist/ idealist quarrel). This has gone on since time
immemorial and is what the MOQ reveals as futile because it stems
from the S/O distinction being static. Your "essence" belongs to the
idealist camp.
Terminology does affect one's understanding of a concept. One of the
problems here is that you are using "intellect" to represent what I call
"experience". To me intellection is the process of organizing sensory
data
into a structured whole - experiential existence. Thus, I would say,
"Experience is [how we distinguish, intellectualize] a reality out there
from a mind in here." I won't quarrel with your assertion that Essence
"belongs to the idealist camp" if you'll agree that Pirsig's Quality also
falls into this camp.
[Ham]:
How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from?
The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of
DQ.
[Bo]:
A new INTELLECTUAL insight (like Newton's) comes along by
intellects premises being manipulated by intelligence's logical gates.
I don't understand what you mean by "intellect's premises". Are they
mental
constructs of cognizant awareness or patterns of an extracorporeal
quality?
Why aren't "intelligence's logical gates" intellect itself? You seem to
be
treating intellect as a property or function of the objective universe
rather than the subjective individual. This is a Pirsigianism that is
incomprehensible to me.
[Ham before]:
I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a
relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and
cogency as "insight". Neither the value that is sensed nor the
awareness that senses it is an "existent". All insight is proprietary
to the individual observer. And that includes the appearance of
physical phenomena (i.e., experiential reality).
[Bo]:
An animal may have an "insight" about new ways to get food, but this
is not intellect and you can't call it (the ways) proprietary to a crow
(for
instance) there is not individuality (subjectivity) at the biological
level.
All this value-talk belongs to MOQ's "meta-level"
To the extent that a crow can be said to have "insight" it is the crow's
proprietary awareness. What draws the crow to a food source is that it
needs food to survive and knows where to find it. The need to survive may
be instinctual, but the location of the source is known only to the crow.
I don't see how animal behavior can be understood any other way.
[Ham]:
Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question:
Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical
equivalent to Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of
its realization by the cognizant mind?
In other words, can a universe exist without sensible awareness?
[Bo]:
The MOQ does not exist independently of SOM, this had to be
achieved before the total picture could be seen. SOM is the distinction
between a cognizant mind and a non-cognizant world so in that sense
"a cognizant mind" is necessary (at least) for a material universe.
However in a MOQ retrospect the mind/matter distinction is itself a Q-
development (its 4th. level) so in the total picture - no - the Quality-
ordered universe is not dependent on a mind. It HAS neither mind nor
matter except as an aggregate.
By "a Q-development" do you mean that Quality acts as an external force to
infuse or empower the individual with intellect? If so, to what extent
does
this Q factor create the individuals' thoughts, ideas, feelings, and
decisions? And if the individual is externally manipulated in this
manner,
how can he be a free creature? That's a fundamental problem for me, Bo.
Listen, the MOQ postulates that the intellectual level creates (your)
cocksureness that only a mind can make a physical universe become
existent. The social level is/was not aware of any such distinction.
There were (is for people still at that level) it) no mind that perceived
a
physical reality, rather everything was guided by forces that permeated
the world. These could be manipulated by correctly performed rituals
(a remnant is religious prayers and sacraments). Intellect looks down
on this as ignorance or superstition, but the MOQ brings intellect a peg
down too.
Can we be more fundamental?
We cannot be more fundamentally wrong.
Thanks, Bo
Ham
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Moq_Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 34, Issue 82
*******************************************
